[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXjBXTn7=87FvvTVNM14LqoT6LL2CDgGCSaReiUDCCjQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:51:21 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: nikola.ciprich@...uxbox.cz
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
nik@...uxbox.cz, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: 4.19 - tons of hw csum failure errors
(Cc'ing Eric)
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:47 PM Nikola Ciprich
<nikola.ciprich@...uxbox.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> just wanted to report, thet after switching to 4.19 (fro 4.14.x, so maybe
> the problem appeared somewhere between), I'm getting tons of similar
> messages:
>
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: br501: hw csum failure
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: CPU: 8 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/8 Tainted: G E 4.19.0lb7.00_01_PRE04 #1
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: Hardware name: Supermicro Super Server/X11DDW-NT, BIOS 2.0b 03/07/2018
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: Call Trace:
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: <IRQ>
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: dump_stack+0x5a/0x73
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: __skb_checksum_complete+0xba/0xc0
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: tcp_error+0x108/0x180 [nf_conntrack]
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: nf_conntrack_in+0xd2/0x4b0 [nf_conntrack]
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: ? csum_partial+0xd/0x20
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: nf_hook_slow+0x3d/0xb0
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: ip_rcv+0xb5/0xd0
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: ? ip_rcv_finish_core.isra.12+0x370/0x370
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x52/0x70
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: process_backlog+0xa3/0x150
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: net_rx_action+0x2af/0x3f0
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: __do_softirq+0xd1/0x28c
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: irq_exit+0xde/0xf0
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: do_IRQ+0x54/0xe0
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: common_interrupt+0xf/0xf
> Oct 27 09:06:27 xxx kernel: </IRQ>
We got the same warning (but a different backtrace) with mlx5 driver.
It seems you are using a different driver. Do you have any clue to reproduce
it?
If you do, try to tcpdump the packets triggering this warning, it could
be useful for debugging.
As I explained in other thread, it is likely that commit 88078d98d1bb
introduces more troubles than the one fixed by d55bef5059dd057bd.
You can try to play with these two commits to see if you get the same
conclusion.
BTW, the offending commit has been backported to 4.14 too. ;)
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists