On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Steve Wills <swills_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > I should have noted this system is running in bhyve. Also I'm told this panic > may be related to the fact that the system is running in bhyve. > > Looking at it a little more closely: > > (kgdb) list *__mtx_lock_sleep+0xb1 > 0xffffffff809638d1 is in __mtx_lock_sleep (/usr/src/sys/kern/kern_mutex.c:431). > 426 * owner stops running or the state of the lock changes. > 427 */ > 428 v = m->mtx_lock; > 429 if (v != MTX_UNOWNED) { > 430 owner = (struct thread *)(v & ~MTX_FLAGMASK); > 431 if (TD_IS_RUNNING(owner)) { > 432 if (LOCK_LOG_TEST(&m->lock_object, 0)) > 433 CTR3(KTR_LOCK, > 434 "%s: spinning on %p held by %p", > 435 __func__, m, owner); > (kgdb) > > I'm told that MTX_CONTESTED was set on the unlocked mtx and that MTX_CONTENDED > is spuriously left behind, and to ask how lock prefix is handled in bhyve. Any > of that make sense to anyone? The mutex has both MTX_CONTESTED and MTX_UNOWNED set on it? That is a special sentinel value that is set on a mutex when it is destroyed (see MTX_DESTROYED in sys/mutex.h). If that is the case it looks like you've stumbled upon some kind of use-after-free in tmpfs. I doubt that bhyve is responsible (other than perhaps changing the timing around making the panic more likely to happen).Received on Sun Jul 06 2014 - 14:28:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:50 UTC