netdev - Re: Multicast packet loss

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49DC5C71.2040505@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:12:33 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Brian Bloniarz <bmb@...enacr.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kchang@...enacr.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Multicast packet loss

Brian Bloniarz a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Brian Bloniarz a écrit :
>>> We've been experimenting with this softirq-delay patch in production,
> and
>>> have seen some hard-to-reproduce crashes. We finally managed to
> capture a
>>> kexec crashdump this morning.
>>
>> Pointer being null might tell us that we managed to call
> inet_def_readable()
>> without socket lock hold...
> 
> False alarm -- I think I did the backport to 2.6.24 incorrectly. 2.6.24 was
> before the UDP receive path started taking the socket lock, so
> inet_def_readable's assumption doesn't hold.
> 
> Sorry to waste everyone's time.
> 

Thanks for doing this discovery work and analysis. 

I am currently off-computers and could not do this until next week.

So, if you want to use 2.6.24, we need to back port other patches as well ?

--
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