On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:27:16 -0500 Robert N. M. Watson wrote: RNMW> On 6 Nov 2011, at 05:51, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:47:20 +0000 (UTC) Mikolaj Golub wrote: >> >> MG> Author: trociny >> MG> Date: Sun Nov 6 10:47:20 2011 >> MG> New Revision: 227207 >> MG> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227207 >> >> MG> Log: >> MG> Cache SO_REUSEPORT socket option in inpcb-layer in order to avoid >> MG> inp_socket->so_options dereference when we may not acquire the lock on >> MG> the inpcb. >> MG> >> MG> This fixes the crash due to NULL pointer dereference in >> MG> in_pcbbind_setup() when inp_socket->so_options in a pcb returned by >> MG> in_pcblookup_local() was checked. >> MG> >> MG> Reported by: dave jones <s.dave.jo...@gmail.com>, Arnaud >> Lacombe <lacom...@gmail.com> >> MG> Suggested by: rwatson >> MG> Glanced by: rwatson >> MG> Tested by: dave jones <s.dave.jo...@gmail.com> >> >> This commit fixes the panic reported by Dave for 9.0 triggered by >> named. Robert has helped very much suggesting the solution and looking >> at the patches. Unfortunately being saturated on free time he >> couldn't do thorough review of the final version confirming only that >> presumably the approach was correct. >> >> I made an effort to check that there was no regression and SO_REUSEADDR >> worked the same way as it had worked before. But I can't be 100% confident >> that I haven't broken something. Because of this I am going to MFC >> only after the release. >> >> Here is the initial discussion of the issue: >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2011-September/029858.html RNMW> Hi Mikolaj: Hi, RNMW> In light of some additional reports of races reminiscent of this one RNMW> (i.e., the UDP crash report on net@ a few days ago), I wonder if we RNMW> should change plans and attempt to get this in the release? I'm sorry I RNMW> haven't had a chance to do a more thorough review, and will try to get RNMW> to that later this week now that my current batch of meetings is RNMW> winding down. I think I saw that report (from sobomax@) and actully it looked for me like not related to this fix. Actually I was not able to find an explanation how it could have happened there :-). Also, although it has not been mentioned in the message according to reffered sources it was stable/8 and it looks like there have been many changes since then in the code. Sure I may have missed something. Nevertheless, I have no any objections to get this fix in the release if people say it is good idea. -- Mikolaj Golub _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
