linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712061146120.28055@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:16:49 +0200 (EET)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	reuben-linuxkernel@...b.net
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:

> From: Reuben Farrelly <reuben-linuxkernel@...b.net>
> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:59:37 +1100
> 
> > On 5/12/2007 4:17 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > - Lots of device IDs have been removed from the e1000 driver and moved over
> > >   to e1000e.  So if your e1000 stops working, you forgot to set CONFIG_E1000E.
> > 
> > This non fatal oops which I have just noticed may be related to this change then 
> > - certainly looks networking related.
> > 
> > WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2518 tcp_fastretrans_alert()
> > Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24-rc4-mm1 #1
> > 
> > Call Trace:
> >   <IRQ>  [<ffffffff8046e038>] tcp_fastretrans_alert+0x229/0xe63
> >   [<ffffffff80470975>] tcp_ack+0xa3f/0x127d
> >   [<ffffffff804747b7>] tcp_rcv_established+0x55f/0x7f8
> >   [<ffffffff8047b1aa>] tcp_v4_do_rcv+0xdb/0x3a7
> >   [<ffffffff881148a8>] :nf_conntrack:nf_ct_deliver_cached_events+0x75/0x99
> 
> No, it's from TCP assertions and changes added by Ilpo to the
> net-2.6.25 tree recently.

Yeah, this (very likely) due to the new SACK processing (in net-2.6.25). 
I'll look what could go wrong with fack_count calculations, most likely 
it's the reason (I've found earlier one out-of-place retransmission 
segment in one of my test case which already indicated that there's 
something incorrect with them but didn't have time to debug it yet).

Thanks for report. Some info about how easily you can reproduce & 
couple of sentences about the test case might be useful later on when 
evaluating the fix.

-- 
 i.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/