netdev - Re: Soft-Lockup/Race in networking in 2.6.31-rc1+195 (possibly caused by netem)

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

Date:	Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:39:27 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: Soft-Lockup/Race in networking in 2.6.31-rc1+195 (possibly caused
    by netem)

Andres Freund wrote, On 07/01/2009 01:20 AM:

> Hi,

Hi,

> 
> While playing around with netem (time, not packet count based loss-
> bursts) I experienced soft lockups several times - to exclude it was my
> modifications causing this I recompiled with the original and it is
> still locking up.
> I captured several of those traces via the thankfully
> still working netconsole.
> The simplest policy I could reproduce the error with was:
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: netem delay 10ms loss 0
> 
> I could not reproduce the error without delay - but that may only be a
> timing issue, as the host I was mainly transferring data to was on a
> local network.
> I could not reproduce the issue on lo.
> 
> The time to reproduce the error varied from seconds after executing tc 
> to several minutes.
> 
> Traces 5+6 are made with vanilla 52989765629e7d182b4f146050ebba0abf2cb0b7
> 
> The earlier traces are made with parts of my patches applied, and only 
> included for completeness as I don't believe my modifications were 
> causing this and all traces are different, so it may give some clues.
> 
> Lockdep was enabled but did not diagnose anything relevant (one dvb 
> warning during bootup).
> 
> Any ideas for debugging?

Maybe these traces will be enough, but lockdep report could save time.
If dvb warning triggers every time then lockdep probably turns off
just after (it works this way, unless something was changed). So,
could you try to repeat this without dvb? Btw., did you try this on
some earlier kernel?

Thanks,
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html