netdev - Re: WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2054 tcp_mark_head

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803022145210.18020@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Sun, 2 Mar 2008 21:51:28 +0200 (EET)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...il.com>,
	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
cc:	Giangiacomo Mariotti <giangiacomo_mariotti@...oo.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2054 tcp_mark_head_lost()

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Guillaume Chazarain wrote:

>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
>>> It does not contain any "KERNEL: assertion (packets <=
>> > tp->packets_out) failed at" line, so I'm afraid it's just noise.

Doh, you were right in this one...

>>  At least it catches one bug which could cause that assertion (it is much
>>  more rigid than the assertion and thus it catched it even though you
>>  won't see that assertion to ever trigger :-)).
>
> Great :-)

...I spoke too early, it was just that the verify call was placed into
a place where the fackets_out is not yet reduced (I had too many version 
of that patch when I first did that and probably picked wrong one of 
them as a starting point, I'm sorry about that). I'll send an updated 
patch tomorrow for you and also correct it so that I don't need to ask 
things like this again (as long as one pastes couple of first occuring 
stacktraces):

>>>  Could you next figure out what is at:

-- 
 i.