netdev - Re: why are there messages like assertion ((int)tcp_packets_in

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:17:07 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Carlos Carvalho <carlos@...ica.ufpr.br>
cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why are there messages like assertion ((int)tcp_packets_in_flight(tp)...

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> 
> > Ilpo Järvinen (ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi) wrote on 26 March 2008 14:57:
> >  >On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> >  >
> >  >> We get these messages in the log from time to time:
> >  >> 
> >  >> assertion ((int)tcp_packets_in_flight(tp) >= 0) failed at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c (1274)
> >  >> 
> >  >> What do they mean? Is there a way to get rid of them?
> >  >
> >  >> They usually appear at high net traffic periods.
> >  >
> >  >Your mail is lacking key bit of information:
> >  >- What kernel version you're using?
> > 
> > 2.6.22.18.
> >  >- Is this only message?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> >  >Especially I'm interested in if Leak printouts show up, but more
> >  >complete snippet of the log wouldn't hurt (I don't need all those
> >  >boot up details though :-)).
> > 
> > I don't know what you mean by leak but there aren't any other
> > messages.
> 
> Since there aren't any other messages, it very likely equals to the case 
> I already debugged enough to analyze its effect...
>
> >  >It may mean a number of things. Basically packet counting is not that 
> >  >accurate as it should, whether that's causing bad things or not, it 
> >  >depends...
> >  >
> >  >...In case it's something before 2.6.24, there's one potential patch 
> >  >available in archives adding one clearly missing left_out adjustment. 
> > 
> > Could you point it to me? I cannot upgrade now because I also use the
> > vserver patch. I cannot test without it because this message only
> > appears when net traffic is high enough, and this is our only machine
> > in this condition.
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=119910263911111&w=2
> 
> ...I think it should apply cleanly to 2.6.22 as well.

Another place that could cause it is the recently discovered flaw with 
newreno in tcp_simple_retransmit. A patch (which won't work with 2.6.22 
though) and a bit description of it:

  http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=120756760521961&w=2


-- 
 i.