panic: proc not held @ fs/procfs/procfs_regs.c:60

[Peter Holm]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:03:29PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 09 January 2005 04:44 pm, Peter Holm wrote:
> > With GENERIC HEAD from Jan 8 08:45 UTC I got:
> >
> > panic(c0826351,c0826973,c082fcfc,3,c175a2e0) at panic+0xd8
> > procfs_doprocregs(c175a2e0,c1b1b5e8,c1665d80,0,ce778c90) at
> > procfs_doprocregs+0x10a pfs_read(ce778c1c,20000,c1f19e04,c08294ba,845) at
> > pfs_read+0x20f
> > vn_read(c1b17ae4,ce778c90,c1a9c080,0,c175a2e0) at vn_read+0x1b9
> > dofileread(8,bfbfea50,4c,ffffffff,ffffffff) at dofileread+0x82
> > read(c175a2e0,ce778d14,3,1,282) at read+0x44
> > syscall(2f,2f,2f,8059f48,a7c) at syscall+0x128
> >
> > Details at http://www.holm.cc/stress/log/cons105.html
> 
> Hmm, looking at procfs_doprocregs() I'm not sure how it could lose the proc 
> lock.  The assertion must be in one of the PROC_UNLOCK().  Can you do a 
> listing of the procfs_doprocregs() frame to see where it died?
> 

No, sorry. I seem to have fumbled the backup of the tree before I
did an update :-(

But isn't the panic in this code:

procfs_regs.c, Revision 1.29.2.1
1.24      jhb        59:        PROC_LOCK(p);
1.29.2.1! das        60:        KASSERT(p->p_lock > 0, ("proc not held"));

> -- 
> John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
> "Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org

-- 
Peter Holm