netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/5] ONLY-APPLY-IF-STILL-FAILING Revert 373c0a7e, 8aa7e847: Fix congestion_wait() sync/async vs read/write confusion

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:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:29:01 +0100
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
	Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
	Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
	Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@....fi>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mohamed Abbas <mohamed.abbas@...el.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ONLY-APPLY-IF-STILL-FAILING Revert 373c0a7e, 8aa7e847: Fix congestion_wait() sync/async vs read/write confusion

On Tuesday 27 October 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Oops. no, please no.
> 8aa7e847 is regression fixing commit. this revert indicate the
> regression occur again.
> if we really need to revert it, we need to revert 1faa16d2287 too.
> however, I doubt this commit really cause regression to iwlan. IOW,
> I agree Jens.

This is not intended as a patch for mainline, but just as a test to see if 
it improves things. It may be a regression fix, but it also creates a 
significant change in behavior during swapping in my test case.
If a fix is needed, it will probably by different from this revert.
Please read: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/26/510.

This mail has some data: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/26/455.

> I hope to try reproduce this problem on my test environment. Can anyone
> please explain reproduce way?

Please see my mails in this thread for bug #14141: 
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/896714

You will probably need to read some of them to understand the context of 
the two mails linked above.

The most relevant ones are (all from the same thread; not sure why gmane 
gives such weird links):
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/39909
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.kernel-testers/7228
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.kernel-testers/7165

> Is special hardware necessary?

Not special hardware, but you may need an encrypted partition and NFS; the 
test may need to be modified according to the amount of memory you have.
I think it should be possible to reproduce the freezes I see while ignoring 
the SKB allocation errors as IMO those are just a symptom, not the cause.
So you should not need wireless.

The severity of the freezes during my test often increases if the test is 
repeated (without rebooting).

Cheers,
FJP
--
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