netdev - Re: oops in tcp_xmit_retransmit

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1009081329140.26447@wel-95.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:34:56 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Lennart Schulte <lennart.schulte@...s.rwth-aachen.de>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Fehrmann, Henning" <henning.fehrmann@....mpg.de>,
	Carsten Aulbert <carsten.aulbert@....mpg.de>
Subject: Re: oops in tcp_xmit_retransmit_queue() w/ v2.6.32.15

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:

> On 09/08/2010 11:32 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >> Sorry about the delay.  I was traveling last week.  Unfortunately, I
> >> don't know whether ->next was NULL on entry or not.  I hacked up the
> >> following ugly patch for the next test run.  It should have everything
> >> which has come up till now + list and hint sanity checking before
> >> starting processing them.  I'm planning on deploying it w/ crashdump
> >> enabled in several days.  If I've missed something, please let me
> >> know.
> > 
> > Any news on this one?
> 
> Unfortunately, we haven't been able to reproduce the problem anymore.

With my debug patch or not at all?

> It could be (but not likely given that none of the debugging messages
> is triggering) that I was mistaken and the previously posted fixed the
> issue. The network used by the cluster went through some changes at
> the time and there have been issues with packet losses.  Given that
> the problem needs packet losses to trigger, it's likely that packet
> loss pattern here changed such that the patterns of packet losses
> which trigger the problem aren't happening anymore.  (Carsten,
> Henning, please feel free to fill in if I'm missing something).

That might well be true, however, you're already a second guy who 
cannot reproduce it with the debug patch so I would not rule out other 
possibilities unless you've tried without debug patch too since the 
changes?


-- 
 i.