linux-kernel - Re: suspected regression in 3.0.28 - applications having problems binding to ports

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: <20120413185452.GA7172@khazad-dum.debian.net>
Date:	Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:54:52 -0300
From:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:	Nikola Ciprich <nikola.ciprich@...uxbox.cz>
Cc:	stable@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: suspected regression in 3.0.28 - applications having problems
 binding to ports

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
> I'd like to report following suspicious behaviour of 3.0.27 kernel.
> 
> On one of our production boxes, after upgrading from 3.0.26 to 3.0.27,
> applications started to behave weird after ~1 day uptime.
> Squid started reporting problems binding to port, nagios misbehaved, etc.
> I was forced to revert to 3.0.26. We tried to reproduce the problem but were unsuccessful.
> After ~1 week without problems with 3.0.26, I tried upgrading this production box to 3.0.27
> again to see what happens and the problem appeared again after about one day.
> 
> imap started reporting problems:
> EMAIL DELIVERY CRITICAL - imap failed: IMAP RECEIVE CRITICAL - Could not connect to A.B.C.D port 993: IO::Socket::INET6 configuration
> 
> same for squid:
> commBind: Cannot bind socket FD 21 to 0.0.0.0: (98) Address already in use
> 
> nagios processes went totally nuts.
> 
> There was no other change except for the kernel upgrade.
> The box is x86_64 quad CPU 4GB machine, what might be important, we're using
> IPv6 as well.
> I don't see any suspicious (at least to me) patch between 3.0.26 and 3.0.27.
> Since it seems to take quite a long to reproduce, I haven't tried bisect yet, first
> wanted to ask - hasn't anyone experienced similar problems?

Did you test 3.0.28?  Your subject line mentions 3.0.28, which was released
a few hours ago, but the body of the email only mentions a regression in
3.0.27 when compared to 3.0.26...

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh
--
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/