Bug #427

bridge: adding inactive interfaces fails

Added by ott almost 10 years ago. Updated about 9 years ago.

Status:ClosedStart date:
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:


Target version:-


I'm using DragonFly 1.6.2 (chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de build 09.12.2006) GENERIC. I
think the trap is caused by an inactive interface which causes the page fault:

brconfig: add ral0: Network is down

Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
fault virtual address = 0x1c
fault code = supervisor read, page not present
instruction pointer = 0x8:0xd2a71056
stack pointer = 0x10:0xd2c4c9bc
frame pointer = 0x10:0xd2c4c9cc
code segment = base 0x0, limit 0xfffff, type 0x1b
= DPL 0, pres 1, def32 1, gran 1
processor eflags = interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0
current process = 818 (ifconfig)
current thread = pri 6

kernel: type 12 trap, code=0
Stopped at ng_ether_output+0x13: movl 0x1c(%eax),%edx

kernel: type 12 trap, code = 0
Stopped at ng_ether_output+0x13: movl 0x1c(%eax),%edx
db> trace
ng_ether_output(c99673d0,d2c4ca08,6,3,0) at ng_ethter_output+0x13
at ether_output+0x378
arprequest(c99673d0,c12126fc,c12126fc,c125800b,8028690c) at
arp_ifinit(c99673d0,c1212658,2808e000,c1212658,0) at arp_ifinit+0x40
ether_ioctl(c99673d0,8020690c,c1212658,c60fbd00,c99673d0) at
bridge_ioctl(c99673d0,8020690c,c1212658,0,0) at bridge_ioctl+0x1b1
in_ifinit (c99673d0,c1212658,d2c4cc28,0,0) at in_ifinit+0x1c7
in_control(d1d01dc0,8040691a,d2c4cc18,c99673d0,c60fbd00) at
so_pru_control(d1d01dc0,8040691a,d2c4cc18,c99673d0,d2x4xbec) at
ifioctl(1d01dc0,8040691a,d2c4cc18,c11470d8,0) at ifioctl+0xace
soo_ioctl(c10e4d80,8040691a,d2c4cc18,c11470d8,2808d000) at soo_ioctl+0x18c
mapped_ioctl(3,8050691a,808d000,0,d2c4cd40) at mapped_ioctl+0x4b0
sys_ioctl(d2c4ccf4,d3c4ccfc,c,c04d00b6,0) at sys_ioctl+0x2a
syscall2(2f,2f,2f,808a3a0,0) at syscall2+0x1cf
Xinit0x80_syscall() at Xint0x80_syscall+0x2a

bridge-1.jpg (457 KB) ott, 12/25/2006 02:50 PM

bridge-2.jpg (459 KB) ott, 12/25/2006 02:54 PM


#1 Updated by ott almost 10 years ago

I uploaded the second photo.

#2 Updated by corecode about 9 years ago

can we close this?

#3 Updated by ott about 9 years ago

Yes, probably. I don't use DragonFlyBSD currently, so I can't verify it anymore.

#4 Updated by bastyaelvtars about 9 years ago

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:56:41 -0000
Matthias-Christian Ott <> wrote:

I never had kernel panics when adding inactive interfaces to bridge.
This must be some other culprit.

Also available in: Atom PDF