pfSense

The relevant bits from the (private) crash dump is this:

db:0:kdb.enter.default>  run pfs
db:1:pfs> bt
Tracing pid 12 tid 100120 td 0xfffff80005b91000
kdb_enter() at kdb_enter+0x33/frame 0xfffffe0106720800
panic() at panic+0x43/frame 0xfffffe0106720860
trap_fatal() at trap_fatal+0x40f/frame 0xfffffe01067208c0
trap_pfault() at trap_pfault+0x4f/frame 0xfffffe0106720920
calltrap() at calltrap+0x8/frame 0xfffffe0106720920
--- trap 0xc, rip = 0xffffffff80d5ab70, rsp = 0xfffffe01067209f0, rbp = 0xfffffe0106720a00 ---
turnstile_broadcast() at turnstile_broadcast+0x40/frame 0xfffffe0106720a00
__rw_wunlock_hard() at __rw_wunlock_hard+0x9e/frame 0xfffffe0106720a30
nd6_resolve_slow() at nd6_resolve_slow+0x2d7/frame 0xfffffe0106720aa0
nd6_resolve() at nd6_resolve+0x125/frame 0xfffffe0106720b10
ether_output() at ether_output+0x4e7/frame 0xfffffe0106720ba0
ip_output_send() at ip_output_send+0xdc/frame 0xfffffe0106720be0
ip_output() at ip_output+0x1295/frame 0xfffffe0106720ce0
ip_forward() at ip_forward+0x3c2/frame 0xfffffe0106720d90
ip_input() at ip_input+0x705/frame 0xfffffe0106720df0
swi_net() at swi_net+0x138/frame 0xfffffe0106720e60
ithread_loop() at ithread_loop+0x257/frame 0xfffffe0106720ef0
fork_exit() at fork_exit+0x7f/frame 0xfffffe0106720f30
fork_trampoline() at fork_trampoline+0xe/frame 0xfffffe0106720f30
--- trap 0, rip = 0, rsp = 0, rbp = 0 ---

addr2line points us to this code section in nd6_resolve_slow():

2455   │     /* If we have child lle, switch to the parent to send NS */
2456   │     if (lle->la_flags & LLE_CHILD) {
2457   │         struct llentry *lle_parent = lle->lle_parent;
2458   │         LLE_WUNLOCK(lle);
2459   │         lle = lle_parent;
2460   │         LLE_WLOCK(lle);
2461   │     }

The crash happens on the lock of the parent lie on line 2460. The most probably reason for this is a race between this code and unlinking of the child/parent lle. I believe we should be acquiring the parent lock before we release the child lock.

Jim Pingle wrote in #note-2:

How exactly is someone making that sort of entry? It can't be made in the GUI via static routes, input validation rejects it. It can't be made at the CLI, the route command rejects it.

I have this in my test case to at least run the relevant code path:

route add -6 -net -inet 0.0.0.0/0 -inet6 2001:db8::1

The customer's routing table also has entries like this:

10.0.0.0/24        2001:db8:42::3 UG1     21   1500   lagg0.10

I've proposed this upstream: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D45913 and copied the original author of the relevant code.

Jim Pingle wrote in #note-2:

How exactly is someone making that sort of entry? It can't be made in the GUI via static routes, input validation rejects it. It can't be made at the CLI, the route command rejects it.

This route was added by FRR BGP learning a route.

Note that these IPs like to be one instruction off. The __rw_wunlock_hard is just prior and it operates on the child -- the parent was not looked at yet. Therefore it is the child which failed to unlock.

Normally a panic like this means the value of the lock itself is corrupted -- the fast path fails and the fallback expects there are blocked threads waiting to be woken up. The crash stems from failing to find any.

For the buggy state to occur something had to damage the lock or there is a bug in locking primitives (I'm ruling out the latter though).

Would the customer be willing to run a kernel with certain debug facilities added? Performance should be about the same, but it should also shed a light on what's going on here.

I can prep everything tomorrow. It is very easy to plop a new kernel in, but I don't know if there is a blessed way here or there is some hand-holding for the customer needed. I'm counting on the support team here.