Summary: | [jail] [panic] kernel panic when starting jails | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Base System | Reporter: | Moritz Wilhelmy <mw> |
Component: | kern | Assignee: | freebsd-jail (Nobody) <jail> |
Status: | Closed DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | mw, rodrigc |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | 9.1-RELEASE | ||
Hardware: | Any | ||
OS: | Any |
Description
Moritz Wilhelmy
2013-02-13 14:20:01 UTC
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-jail Fix synopsis and assign. I have not debugged your dump. From your description I see you have the pf firewall altq traffic shaper compiled into the kernel with vimage. My current understanding is pf has been fixed to run on the host when vimage is compiled into the kernel. But altq has not been made vimage aware yet and there is no pr on this problem. I have tested trying to get pf to start in a vnet/vimage jail without success. Pf suffers from the rc.d nojail keyword problem. This command sequence is a work around. Jexec jailname service netif start Jexec jailname service routing start Jexec jailname service pf start And of course you have to do the reverse before stopping the said jail. My suggestion is to remove altq from being compiled into the kernel and don't use altq on a host that has vimage compiled into its kernel. Thanks. I don't actually use ALTQ at the moment, so just disabling it should do the trick for now. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:35:18AM -0500, Dustin Wenz wrote:
> Is there any way this PR could be bumped up in priority?
Unfortunately over the years the priority -related fields have been so
abused as to have become meaningless.
mcl
----- Forwarded message from Dustin Wenz <dustinwenz@ebureau.com> ----- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:35:18 -0500 From: Dustin Wenz <dustinwenz@ebureau.com> To: bugbusters@FreeBSD.org Subject: Update request: kernel panic when starting jails X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) I would like to update PR: kern/176112: [jail] [panic] kernel panic when starting jails This problem is still present in FreeBSD 10.0-STABLE #0 r265159, when built for amd64. Is there any way this PR could be bumped up in priority? The current description of the bug appears adequate, even if it's over a year old. Please let me know if any more information would be helpful. Thanks, - .Dustin Wenz ----- End forwarded message ----- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 194515 *** |