netdev - Re: r8169 hard-freezes the system on big network loads

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:	Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:36:16 +0200
From:	Michael Brade <brade@...ormatik.uni-muenchen.de>
To:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, nic_swsd@...ltek.com,
	Hayes <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
Subject: Re: r8169 hard-freezes the system on big network loads

On Tuesday 13 September 2011 10:11:26 you wrote:
> Michael Brade <brade@...ormatik.uni-muenchen.de> :
> [...]
> 
> > Does it have to be 3.1.0-rc3 or is 3.0.1 ok as well ?
> :
> :o(
> 
> Almost any release may exhibit the bug. The attached patch (#0003)
> should be a better candidate as an official fix though.

ok, good news: I did not experience any freeze anymore even though I 
transfered 60 GB. And I applied both of your patches and 

-                   if (status & RxFOVF) {
-                           rtl8169_schedule_work(dev, rtl8169_reset_task);
-                           dev->stats.rx_fifo_errors++;
-                   }

 
> > If so, I have another bad news: 3.0.1 still crashes with this patch.
> > It took me a lot longer to crash it but eventually it did happen.
> > Not sure why it took longer, I guess I didn't generate enough throughput.
> 
> It sure sucks from a user experience viewpoint but it is not _that_ bad.

I disagree - I actually lose data because I mount my data and backups with 
iSCSI and exactly then it crashes.

> Are the symptoms in any way different or do you still notice more-or-less
> periodic link-up messages and no real network traffic ?

dmesg looks like this:

[ 1611.380420] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1611.995417] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1612.323050] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1612.574016] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1613.450630] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1613.929383] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1614.950939] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1615.699660] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1616.005507] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1616.746199] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1617.879670] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up
[ 1618.461433] r8169 0000:13:00.0: eth0: link up

so yes but what do you mean with "no real network traffic"? I still get
100 MB/s.

cheers,
  Michael
--
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