tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: panic: mbuf too short for IPv6 header

On Sun, 4 May 2008 13:00:29 +0200
Manuel Bouyer <> wrote:

> Hi,
> on a recent -current (kernel sources as of yesterday), I've got
> several panic: mbuf too short for IPv6 header
> with the stack trace being:
> 0x0(0xf0c60500, 0x3a, 0x28, 0x169, 0xf2668dcc, 0x28) at
> netbsd:icmp6_input+0x78 icmp6_input(0xf0c60500, 0xf2668e70, 0x3a,
> 0xf2668e74, 0x6, 0x1) at netbsd:ip6_input+0x8ec ip6_input(0x0, 0xe,
> 0x0, 0xf21474f0, 0x52e1474c, 0xf02ef580) at netbsd:ip6intr+0x68
> ip6intr(0xf02ef400, 0xf2668edc, 0xf02ea400, 0x10, 0x44, 0x0) at
> netbsd:softint_thread+0x90 softint_thread(0xf212d170, 0xf2147980,
> 0xf02a8ac0, 0x0, 0x904010e1, 0x90401fe1) at netbsd:lwp_trampoline+0x8
> End traceback...
> I think it's related to running named on this box. Without named
> running, the box had been up for several hours; with named the panic
> occurs in less than one hour (tried 3 times).
> Looking at the mail archives, it seems this issue has already been
> reported, but I didn't find a definitive fix. The attached patch
> mimics code in ipv4 icmp_input, and makes sure the related mbuf part
> is contigous and writeable. With this patch, the box has been up for
> 13 hours with named running, without problems. Does it look right ?
Has this been committed?  I just got that panic on what I think is
up-to-date source.

                --Steve Bellovin,

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index