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

Message-ID: <4A84589B.6020002@wpkg.org>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:16:59 +0200
From:	Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org>
To:	John Dykstra <john.dykstra1@...il.com>
CC:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:155	inet_sock_destruct+0x122/0x13a()

John Dykstra wrote:
> 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?

There was quite a bit of NFS, but over TCP.

The other type of traffic was iSCSI (made with tgt as a target).


-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
--
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