linux-kernel - Re: deadlocks if use htb

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: <496EE1D4.6010709@bigtelecom.ru>
Date:	Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:12:20 +0300
From:	Badalian Vyacheslav <slavon@...telecom.ru>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	Chris Caputo <ccaputo@....net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Denys Fedoryschenko <denys@...p.net.lb>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: deadlocks if use htb


> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:02:04PM +0000, Chris Caputo wrote:
> ...
>   
>> That said, I would not recommend just the three for -stable unless they 
>> get a much wider amount of testing, on multiple platforms.  I don't see 
>> that as likely to happen, plus Peter says they are incomplete, so maybe it 
>> is just best to recommend that 2.6.28 users getting crashes while using 
>> HTB try these specific patches at first, and then the rest of the patches 
>> if they do not work.
>>     
>
> The main problem is my patches, at least the tested ones, harm htb's
> exactness, and I doubt I could convince anybody to merege them, at
> least before your case. It was only reported by two users here (plus
> one more on private), and looked like something very rare. After your
> report it looks much more necessary.
>
> If there is nothing better, I can recommend it, but IMHO the best
> candidate for this is the testing patch #4 from this thread, which
> alas wasn't even tested... So, Chris, if you could give it a try in
> the meantime (without any other patches)?
>
> Thanks,
> Jarek P.
>
> (resend testing patch #4 - for 2.6.27 or 2.6.28)
> ---
>
> diff -Nurp a2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c b2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c
> --- a2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c	2008-12-11 08:16:16.000000000 +0000
> +++ b2.6.27.7/net/sched/sch_htb.c	2008-12-15 10:44:32.000000000 +0000
> @@ -924,6 +924,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *htb_dequeue(struc
>  		}
>  	}
>  	sch->qstats.overlimits++;
> +	qdisc_watchdog_cancel(&q->watchdog);
>  	qdisc_watchdog_schedule(&q->watchdog, next_event);
>  fin:
>  	return skb;
>
>   
Hello all.
I also can say this, maybe its help:
At old kernels my servers do 100% soft interupt if traffic more 600mbs.
Without your patches at new kernel i get crash only at heavy network
load PCs (more then 400mbs-500mbs). Servers that get 100-200 mbs not
crashed long time.
I remember that i not test patch #4, because you sat what its only
another way to temporary fix and mainline problem in hrtimer , but i try
turn on HiRes and Dynamic Tics in kernel - its not help for me.
Best Regals. Slavon
--
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/