linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] 2.6.21-rc7 NFS writes: fix a series of issues

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]

Message-ID: <20070418141722.GI24044@iucha.net>
Date:	Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:17:23 -0500
From:	florin@...ha.net (Florin Iucha)
To:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] 2.6.21-rc7 NFS writes: fix a series of issues

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:11:46AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 08:42 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> > Could the port in CLOSE_WAIT state be the culprit?  (FWIW
> > the server has been up for 38 days and subjected to
> > this nfs test quite a bit without showing any stress).
> 
> The port in CLOSE_WAIT shows that a socket was closed down recently, but
> once the connection is re-established, the client should start sending
> data.
> Do you have a copy of wireshark or ethereal on hand? If so, could you
> take a look at whether or not any NFS traffic is going between the
> client and server once the hang happens?
> Note that the timeout value is 60 seconds, so if you see no immediate
> traffic, then let the ethereal/wireshark session keep running for a
> couple more minutes.

Should I run wireshark/ethereal on the client or on the server?

I'll get a trace tonight (10 PM CST) and get back to you.

Thanks,
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)