[PATCH] VirtualBox 4.1.8 kmod panic with VIMAGE kernel

[Brandon Gooch]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Bernhard Froehlich <decke at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 10.03.2012 05:42, Brandon Gooch wrote:
>>
>> It's my guess that not many people are running VirtualBox on a
>> VIMAGE-enabled kernel.  However, for those of us who do (just me?),
>> the attached patch is required to prevent a panic when running
>> VirtualBox in such an environment. The patch belongs to the
>> emulators/virtualbox-ose-kmod port.
>>
>> --- src/VBox/HostDrivers/VBoxNetAdp/VBoxNetAdp.c.orig   2011-12-19
>> 07:01:06.000000000 -0600
>> +++ src/VBox/HostDrivers/VBoxNetAdp/VBoxNetAdp.c        2011-12-26
>> 14:54:27.000000000 -0600
>> @@ -1189,6 +1189,7 @@
>>  int  vboxNetAdpInit(void)
>>  {
>>     unsigned i;
>> +    PVBOXNETADP pVboxnet0;
>>     /*
>>      * Init common members and call OS-specific init.
>>      */
>> @@ -1201,7 +1202,8 @@
>>         vboxNetAdpOsInit(&g_aAdapters[i]);
>>     }
>>
>> -    return VINF_SUCCESS;
>> +    /* Create vboxnet0 */
>> +    return vboxNetAdpCreate(&pVboxnet0, NULL);
>>  }
>>
>>  /**
>>
>> If there is a more appropriate fix, please help me find it, otherwise,
>> it would be great to have this committed!
>
>
> Sorry, that I haven't committed the patch until now. Do you agree that
> this patch is licensed under MIT License so I can send it upstream?

Yes, absolutely. Do with it as you please...

What I found when tracking this down led to this commit:

https://www.virtualbox.org/changeset/35785/vbox

https://www.virtualbox.org/browser/vbox/trunk/src/VBox/HostDrivers/VBoxNetAdp/VBoxNetAdp.c?rev=35785

I'm not sure how the initial VBox network adapter is supposed to be
created; maybe it should be deferred to the OS-specific init process
(in VBoxNetAdp-freebsd.c)? Trouble is, not sure how to do that
exactly, but anyway it seems more like a bug that was introduced.

Attempting to push this upstream will reveal something I imagine :)

> Current VIMAGE support is only for vboxnetflt and you are touching
> vboxnetadp so that is probably why nobody used it before. Have you
> tested it with a non VIMAGE kernel?

I tested it with GENERIC, a custom kernel WITHOUT VIMAGE, and a custom
kernel WITH VIMAGE. I tested on 9-STABLE (from this month) and now
10-CURRENT.

> --
> Bernhard Froehlich
> http://www.bluelife.at/