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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:50:59 +0200 From: "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <denys@...p.net.lb> To: hadi@...erus.ca Cc: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: circular locking, mirred, 2.6.24.2 On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:27:14 -0500, jamal wrote > On Thu, 2008-06-03 at 15:57 +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > > I am able to reproduce this warning over this relatively simple shell script > > on my Gentoo PC (2.6.25-rc3). > > http://www.nuclearcat.com/files/bug_feb.txt > > > > That script looks pretty sane to me - nothing super-exciting. I suspect > you eventually want them all to look like ifb1 on the egress. > Do you see the same issue without the ifb1 speacial case? Well, i am able to reproduce in much more trivial script. Tested 2.6.25-rc4 also. modprobe ifb ifconfig ifb0 up TC=/sbin/tc $TC qdisc del dev eth0 ingress 1>/dev/null 2>/dev/null $TC qdisc add dev eth0 ingress ${TC} filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 10 u32 \ match u32 0 0 flowid 1:1 \ action mirred egress redirect dev ifb0 > > > Probably it will help to debug issue for more experienced developers. Note: > > it appears not immediately, second time i tested, it's appeared after while, > > but in matter of seconds. > > I wonder is there some latency from the moment you insmod ifb to the > moment the tc rules take effect? Will it still happen if you dont > have modules? Also note, that lock dependency is a bit strange, > Jarek correct me if i am wrong; it seems to say: a packet received > on ingress of some e1000 (ethx) gets acted on by mirred which ends > grabbing lock of an ifb device - this part should be fine and no > need for the alarm. The alarm seems to be a result of a loopback > device that is being registered in between the two activities. > i.e there are three devices affected with entirely different > locks(ethx, ifbx, and loopback). Smells like lockdep is getting it wrong? No idea, i have strange lockup's on my systems where i have ifb, and that make me worry. And i feel it is directly related with my love to use ifb devices and way how i am using them. > > > Note - it can stop traffic on PC completely. It is also seems crashed my > > desktop PC, i am not able to execute "tc qdisc del dev eth0 root". > > The system hang completely. I had few similar issues on my PPPoE servers > > (with different scripts for shapers), that system hang, and even "reboot - f" > > doesn't work sometimes. > > This sounds like a different issue from above - when did this start > to happen? Is it at the same time as above warnings showing up? Yes, it is different issue seems, it is rare to lockup system , and i will dig more, to understand how it is happening. > > cheers, > jamal > > -- > 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 -- Denys Fedoryshchenko Technical Manager Virtual ISP S.A.L. -- 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