netdev - Re: WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:155 inet_sock

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: <1250176905.7289.7.camel@Maple>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:21:45 +0000
From:	John Dykstra <john.dykstra1@...il.com>
To:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mangoo@...g.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:155
	inet_sock_destruct+0x122/0x13a()

On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 16:00 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> BTW, I've seen the same issue in 2.6.28 and 2.6.29 while doing a bunch
> of NFS-over-UDP testing.  I've seen the issue reported in 2.6.27 as well,
> but it went by ignored.  It's not easy to reproduce as it seems like it
> requires quite a bit traffic over over multiple interfaces.

I've been unable to reproduce it so far.  Has bonding always been
present in the cases you've seen, or are multiple independent interfaces
sufficient?

In the case you reported initially, openvpn was using UDP, but the peer
was dead, so there presumably wasn't much traffic from that app.  Was
there lots of NFS-over-UDP traffic also going on?

Where was the independent report on 2.6.27?

  --  John

--
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