[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: panic: mbuf too short for IPv6 header
In article <20080504110028.GA6373%antioche.eu.org@localhost>,
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost> wrote:
>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
>ip6_input(0x0, 0xe, 0x0, 0xf21474f0, 0x52e1474c, 0xf02ef580) at
>ip6intr(0xf02ef400, 0xf2668edc, 0xf02ea400, 0x10, 0x44, 0x0) at
>softint_thread(0xf212d170, 0xf2147980, 0xf02a8ac0, 0x0, 0x904010e1,
>0x90401fe1) at netbsd:lwp_trampoline+0x8
>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 ?
Looks good to me.
Main Index |
Thread Index |