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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:48:43 +0200 From: Cedric Le Goater <legoater@...e.fr> To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote: > >> Ilpo Järvinen wrote: >>> Sacktag fastpath_cnt_hint seems to be very tricky to get right... >>> I suppose this one fixes Cedric's case. I cannot say for sure >>> until there is something more definite indication of >>> tcp_retrans_try_collapse origin than what the simple late WARN_ON >>> gave for us. ...Especially since it's non-trivial to have skb >>> hint "correctly" positioned in the write_queue while still ending >>> up calling that function. However, considering how difficult it >>> seems to be for Cedric to reproduce, it might well be this one. >>> >>> In addition, I noticed another reset which wasn't previously >>> converted to WARN_ON, so doing that now. Boot + simple xfer >>> tested. Please apply to net-2.6.24. >> I'm dropping the previous patches you sent me and switching to this patchset. >> right ? > > Yes you can do that... However, there are two ways forward: > > 1) Drop and test with this patchset long enough to verify it's gone... > 2) No dropping and get the more exact trace by reproducing, which can > point out to tcp_retrans_try_collapse confirming the source of the > bug or revealing yet another bug... > > The first one has one drawback, it cannot prove the fix very well since > the bug could just not occur by chance... Path 2 would clearly show the > place from where the problem originates because we will know that it got > triggered! I personally would prefer path 2 but whether you want to go for > that depends on the time you want to invest in it... > > ...I rediffed the tcp_verify_fackets patch too (below) just in case it > would be something else in you case and you choose path 1 (put it on top > of this patchset, applies with some offsets). In case the problem is gone, > it shouldn't trigger and if it does, we'll have another bug caught. I have a spare node so I'm starting 2) with the 3 patches you sent and that last one which applied fine. all of them on a fresh git pull of net-2.6.24 > Anyway, thanks for ccing right persons and netdev right from the > beginning. thanks to git ! :) C. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists