Date:	Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:55:35 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Olędzki <ole@....pl>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.34: Problem with UDP traffic on lo + poll(?)

Hi Eric,

On 2010-09-06 21:42, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 06 septembre 2010 à 19:11 +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki a écrit :
>> Hello,
>>
>> For the last two days I have been trying to track a starange problem I
>> bumped into after upgrading my kernel from 2.6.31.12 to 2.6.34.6.
>>
>> The problem is that several times a day, nagios logs that plugins are not
>> able to resolve DNS hostnames of monitored hosts. The DNS service is
>> provided locally by the host itself so all traffic is handled over a
>> loopback interface. The host handles rather moderate traffic - ~1000pps
>> and ~30 DNS requests per second. This DNS service is also provided to
>> other hosts that are also running 2.6.34.6 and are connected over a
>> Ethernet network, but the problem exists only locally.
>>
>> After a long investigation I found that I'm able to reproduce this problem
>> by adding: "*.t IN A 127.0.0.1" to the "lan" zone and using the following
>> script:
>>
>> --- cut here ---
>> a=0
>> while strace -o /tmp/s.log.1 -s 1024  /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/check_icmp -H $a.t.lan ; do
>>    date
>>    sleep 0.1
>>    a=$((a+1))
>> done
>> -- cut here ---
>>
>> Strace shows that the problem is in receiving responses from the
>> nameserver:
>>
>> socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM|SOCK_NONBLOCK, IPPROTO_IP) = 4
>> connect(4, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(53), sin_addr=inet_addr("192.168.130.53")}, 28) = 0
>> poll([{fd=4, events=POLLOUT}], 1, 0)    = 1 ([{fd=4, revents=POLLOUT}])
>> sendto(4, "\333b\1\0\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0041817\1t\3lan\0\0\1\0\1", 28, MSG_NOSIGNAL, NULL, 0) = 28
>> poll([{fd=4, events=POLLIN}], 1, 5000)  = 0 (Timeout)
>> poll([{fd=4, events=POLLOUT}], 1, 0)    = 1 ([{fd=4, revents=POLLOUT}])
>> sendto(4, "\333b\1\0\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0041817\1t\3lan\0\0\1\0\1", 28, MSG_NOSIGNAL, NULL, 0) = 28
>> poll([{fd=4, events=POLLIN}], 1, 5000)  = 0 (Timeout)
>> close(4)                                = 0
>>
>> However, tcpdump attached to lo shows that both the request and
>> the response are properly delivered:
>>
>> 03:00:47.181529 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 47869, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 56)
>>       192.168.130.53.41083>  192.168.130.53.53: 56162+ A? 1817.t.lan. (28)
>> 03:00:47.181585 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 29563, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 112)
>>       192.168.130.53.53>  192.168.130.53.41083: 56162* 1/1/1 1817.t.lan. A 127.0.0.1 (84)
>> --
>> 03:00:52.186465 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 47870, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 56)
>>       192.168.130.53.41083>  192.168.130.53.53: 56162+ A? 1817.t.lan. (28)
>> 03:00:52.186580 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 29576, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 112)
>>       192.168.130.53.53>  192.168.130.53.41083: 56162* 1/1/1 1817.t.lan. A 127.0.0.1 (84)
>>
>> 03:00:57.298221 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 57985, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 60)
>>       192.168.130.53.39370>  192.168.130.53.53: 145+ A? 1817.t.lan.lan. (32)
>> 03:00:57.298300 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 29584, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 116)
>>       192.168.130.53.53>  192.168.130.53.39370: 145 NXDomain* 0/1/0 (88)
>>
>> In most cases it takes from 2m to 15m to trigger this error and so far I
>> have not been able to reproduce it on my lab environment. Downgrading
>> the kernel back to 2.6.31 cures the issue.
>>
>> I have a very short service window so bisecting is nearly impossible.
>> During the next few days I should be able to find if this problem was
>> introduced in 2.6.32 or 2.6.33, but if you have clues what to check first
>> or idea about some smart debug patches, I will be very grateful.
>
> Do you have iptables and conntracking loaded ?

2 x Yes:

# iptables-save
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.9.1 on Mon Sep  6 21:52:24 2010
*raw
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [3061956837:831568193533]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [2101642993:2332130961342]
COMMIT
# Completed on Mon Sep  6 21:52:24 2010
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.9.1 on Mon Sep  6 21:52:24 2010
*nat
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [7763503:512346498]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [83026014:5350796588]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [83026014:5350796588]
-A PREROUTING -d 192.168.126.31/32 -j RETURN
-A PREROUTING -i bond0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8088
COMMIT
# Completed on Mon Sep  6 21:52:24 2010
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.9.1 on Mon Sep  6 21:52:24 2010
*mangle
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [3061956837:831568193533]
:INPUT ACCEPT [3061952879:831567826577]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [2101642993:2332130961342]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [2101704532:2332145225884]
COMMIT
# Completed on Mon Sep  6 21:52:24 2010
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.9.1 on Mon Sep  6 21:52:24 2010
*filter
:INPUT ACCEPT [86498522:24274295687]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [42134743:136784108555]
COMMIT
# Completed on Mon Sep  6 21:52:24 2010

# sysctl net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_count net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_max
net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_count = 375
net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_max = 65536


> Maybe frame is droped by firewall on this particular port (39370 )

Yes, conntrack is one of possibilities. However, this problem only 
manifests on 2.6.34 and never on 2.6.31 where iptables and conntrack 
configurations are identically. And of course, each time it is a 
different port.

Please also note that this problem only exists when communication is 
handled over a loopback interface - I'm not able to trigger this from a 
remote host even if I run the test on two hosts (local & remote) 
simultaneously.

Best regards,

			Krzysztof Olędzki
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists