netdev - Re: [bug] stuck localhost TCP connections, v2.6.26-rc3+

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]

Date:	Thu, 29 May 2008 16:48:22 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Subject: Re: [bug] stuck localhost TCP connections, v2.6.26-rc3+

On Thu, 29 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> btw., i now also have a hung socket over real network:
> 
> titan:~> netstat -nt
> Active Internet connections (w/o servers)
> Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address               Foreign Address             State
> tcp        0  86752 10.0.1.14:49921             10.0.1.16:3632              ESTABLISHED
> 
> (the scenario is similar to the incident i've analyzed before, so i wont 
> repeat the tcpdump, etc.)

...Yes, also the previous one you quoted was already over the network.
But I think the key is in the receiving end rather than in the sending 
end. Could try to extract any information about these I mentioned earlier,
to me there are mainly two weird things:

1) Why we see orphaning with data in the first place. I think distcc would 
be interested to read everything, unless some worker crashed in early...
Though some timeout in distcc could explain it as well but I don't know 
too well how distcc does everything...

2) Why the receiving end of the connection is still in ESTABLISHED 
without an owner... If it had some unread data, should be in CLOSE or in 
FIN_WAIT1 otherwise. Ie., tcp_close() would change the state of the flow.

These both basically happen at the receiving end, though if there was 
unread data the RST would also reflected state change to the sending side 
and since there's window, also FIN would be sent right away and 
cause sender to leave ESTABLISHED rather than that FIN would get stuck 
into the tail of the TCP queue.

How to collect the information, I'm not too sure, tcp_close might well 
work as a plain printk because I think it shouldn't be that noisy. But 
that would likely just show that it wasn't called for a stuck receiver
at all, so it would probably end up being a dead-end anyway.

-- 
 i.
--
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