linux-kernel - Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

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:	Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:46:49 -0600
From:	florin@...ha.net (Florin Iucha)
To:	"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>,
	linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Subject: Re: heavy nfs[4]] causes fs badness Was: 2.6.20-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v2)

On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 11:11:13PM -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Florin Iucha <florin@...ha.net> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Based on this info, I think we can rule out any USB.  I will try
> > testing with NFS3 to see if the problem persists.  Unfortunately there
> > is no oops or anything in "dmesg".
> 
> Take a look at bz #7796, a NFS bug + fix. But my feelin is that this is
> older.

The reported had and oops?  Luxury!  I get nothing ;)

I am testing again, this time on 2.6.20-rc5 compiled with extra debug
and I got a couple dozens of:

   "eth0: too many iterations (6) in nv_nic_irq."

in the kernel log.

florin

-- 
Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition.
      http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)