On 3 Feb, Frode Nordahl wrote: > Hello, > > Got a better backtrace now: > (gdb) bt > #0 0x280b51bc in bcmp () from /lib/libc.so.5 > #1 0x08073080 in ?? () > #2 0x0804ed3b in unlock_nfslock (fl=0xbfbfe0a0, > released_lock=0xbfbfe04c, > left_lock=0xbfbfe054, right_lock=0xbfbfe050) at lockd_lock.c:976 > #3 0x0804f778 in unlock_partialfilelock (fl=0xbfbfe0a0) at > lockd_lock.c:1477 > #4 0x0804fd6d in do_unlock (fl=0xbfbfe0a0) at lockd_lock.c:1788 > #5 0x08050181 in unlock (lock=0xbfbfe568, flags=2) at lockd_lock.c:1967 > #6 0x0804d338 in nlm4_unlock_4_svc (arg=0xbfbfe560, rqstp=0xbfbfeab0) > at lock_proc.c:1120 > #7 0x0804b449 in nlm_prog_4 (rqstp=0xbfbfeab0, transp=0x8073080) > at nlm_prot_svc.c:436 > #8 0x280f67d8 in svc_getreq_common () from /lib/libc.so.5 > #9 0x280f65af in svc_getreqset () from /lib/libc.so.5 > #10 0x280b5ea4 in svc_run () from /lib/libc.so.5 > #11 0x0804b97c in main (argc=1, argv=0xbfbfed10) at lockd.c:212 > #12 0x08049962 in _start () > (gdb) frame 2 > #2 0x0804ed3b in unlock_nfslock (fl=0xbfbfe0a0, > released_lock=0xbfbfe04c, > left_lock=0xbfbfe054, right_lock=0xbfbfe050) at lockd_lock.c:976 > 976 mfl = get_lock_matching_unlock(fl); > (gdb) > > bcmp call in get_lock_matching_unlock(): > if (bcmp(&fl->filehandle, &ifl->filehandle, > sizeof(fhandle_t))) > continue; > > Since it dies on bcmp, it seems like a null lock gets into the list for > some reason. Probably not a NULL pointer because &ifl->filehandle will be the same value as (char *)ifl+offsetof(struct file_lock, filehandle), and LIST_FOREACH() will bail out when ifl is NULL. It would be interesting to walk the lock list starting at nfslocklist_head and following the nfslocklist links so see if any of the link values look bogus.Received on Tue Feb 03 2004 - 02:06:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:41 UTC