| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130119030647.GG31262@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:06:47 +0900 From: Norbert Preining <preining@...ic.at> To: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net> Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: dire state of rtl8192se driver in 3.7 Hi Larry, hi all, it is some time that I didn't post, but here I want to come back to this item. On Sa, 22 Dez 2012, Larry Finger wrote: >> But the DMAR item I also reported points to a real problem I guess. > > Yes, I would agree. That seems to be gone with current kernels 3.8.0-rc3 I have had the hanging issue today again, but this time it showed a very interesting rythm, that might help to understand. Pinging my router I normally have about ~1ms response time. When it hanged (and this is now several thousand seconds long test) the hang times are *always very close: 4sec 3sec 2sec 1sec is one block. This block might repeat a few times, or only once, but it is always in this rythm: 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=407 ttl=255 time=1.23 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=408 ttl=255 time=1.89 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=409 ttl=255 time=3925 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=410 ttl=255 time=2918 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=411 ttl=255 time=1910 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=412 ttl=255 time=903 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=413 ttl=255 time=1.15 ms ... 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=418 ttl=255 time=1.16 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=419 ttl=255 time=4040 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=420 ttl=255 time=3033 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=421 ttl=255 time=2025 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=422 ttl=255 time=1018 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=423 ttl=255 time=4087 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=424 ttl=255 time=3081 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=425 ttl=255 time=2073 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=426 ttl=255 time=1065 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=427 ttl=255 time=4124 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=428 ttl=255 time=3121 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=429 ttl=255 time=2114 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=430 ttl=255 time=1109 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=431 ttl=255 time=4169 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=432 ttl=255 time=3163 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=433 ttl=255 time=2155 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=434 ttl=255 time=1147 ms .... 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=521 ttl=255 time=1.30 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=522 ttl=255 time=1.25 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=523 ttl=255 time=4300 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=524 ttl=255 time=3293 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=525 ttl=255 time=2295 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=526 ttl=255 time=1287 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=527 ttl=255 time=4357 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=528 ttl=255 time=3351 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=529 ttl=255 time=2344 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=530 ttl=255 time=1336 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=531 ttl=255 time=4408 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=532 ttl=255 time=3403 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=533 ttl=255 time=2395 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=534 ttl=255 time=1387 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=535 ttl=255 time=4453 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=536 ttl=255 time=3449 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=537 ttl=255 time=2441 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=538 ttl=255 time=1433 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=539 ttl=255 time=4499 ms ... In addition, the responses for these blocks come *together*, not after 4sec the first, then after 3 sec the next. No. It is wait 10 sec, bammmm, all 4, wait 10secs, bam all 4. Does that ring *any* bell* Norbert ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists