Re: Fw: [PACKET]: Fix /proc/net/packet crash due to bogus private pointer

2007-12-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:37:01 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > argh, please don't use linux-net. It's basically dead afaik. Suitable ccs restored. > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:07:07AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > > > I suspect namespace borkage. But just because you pin-poi

Re: ip xfrm bug

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:21:18AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > I can see where to filter these, but I am ignorant of how to > identify the socket policies. Are they just marked as sub-policies? Jamal's going to hate me but setkey(8) already uses this so we're stuck with it anyway. The tes

Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL()

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 09:44:29PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > Such situations (ASSERT_RTNL() in atomic context) have always > been bugs though, and that continues to be true and I think > the check should be added somehow. OK once I've fixed the set_multicast path I'll do an audit of the exist

[PATCH 2.6.25] SCTP: Use crc32c library for checksum calculations.

2007-12-15 Thread Vlad Yasevich
The crc32c library used an identical table and algorithm as SCTP. Switch to using the library instead of carrying our own table. Using crypto layer proved to have too much overhead compared to using the library directly. Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- include/net/sctp/chec

[PATCH] SCTP: Flush fragment queue when exiting partial delivery

2007-12-15 Thread Vlad Yasevich
At the end of partial delivery, we may have complete messages sitting on the fragment queue. These messages are stuck there until a new fragment arrives. This can comletely stall a given association. When clearing partial delivery state, flush any complete messages from the fragment queue and se

Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL()

2007-12-15 Thread David Miller
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:10:16 +0800 > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:48:10AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Now as a separate issue we (ie: you) need to work out what _other_ things > > you want ASSERT_RTNL to check apart from "rtnl must be held". > > Since

Re: [NETFILTER] xt_hashlimit : speedups hash_dst()

2007-12-15 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:04:47 +0100 > I prefer to let admins chose their size, since it makes attacker life more > difficult :) > > For example, I can tell you I have a server, were size is between 2.000.000 > and 3.500.000, I dont want to be forced to u

Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL()

2007-12-15 Thread David Miller
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:44:18 -0800 > That sounds like a bug in mutex_trylock() to me. I disagree, I have yet to see a legitimate case where doing a trylock on a mutex lock didn't turn out to be a bug when performed in an atomic context. This is particul

Re: [PATCH 0/4] [UDP]: memory accounting and limitation (take 10)

2007-12-15 Thread David Miller
From: Hideo AOKI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:07:44 -0500 > Changelog take 9 -> take 10: > * supported using sk_forward_alloc > * introduced several memory accounting functions with spin lock > * changed detagram receive functions to be able to customize >destructor > * fi

Please pull 'fixes-jgarzik' branch of wireless-2.6

2007-12-15 Thread John W. Linville
Jeff, A few more fixes for 2.6.24...let me know if there are any problems! Thanks, John P.S. The zd1211rw patch is already in netdev-2.6#upstream, but it belongs in 2.6.24 as well. --- Individual patches available here: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/linville/wireles

Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-R} usage.

2007-12-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:55:09 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 15, 2007 3:13 PM, Miles Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 15, 2007 6:13 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:24 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot

[PACKET]: Fix /proc/net/packet crash due to bogus private pointer

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:07:07AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > I suspect namespace borkage. But just because you pin-pointed > my patch I'll try to track it down :) Surprise surprise. The namespace seq patch missed two spots in AF_PACKET. [PACKET]: Fix /proc/net/packet crash due to bogus priva

Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:17:35PM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > Not all of them in the bonding code, but all two of them in the small patch. OK, we need to change all of the ones that may be called from process context with BH on. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email:

Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

2007-12-15 Thread Andy Gospodarek
On Dec 15, 2007 9:27 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I agree with you completely, Herbet, which is why I was surprised that > > my first apparently did not resolve the issue. I felt it should > > have > > Did it change all occurren

Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-R} usage.

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My suspicion is that you've hit bad breakage in networking and lockdep just > isn't sufficiently robust to handle what it's being given. > > Can you suggest a way in which others can reproduce this? I can reproduce this now. I suspect it's to do with

Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1: cat /proc/net/packet -> oops

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
Mariusz Kozlowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > git-ubi.patch > GOOD > # > git-net.patch > BAD > ipsec-fix-reversed-icmp6-policy-check.patch > > but this seems to be far from precise :) I suspect namespace borkage. But just because you pin-pointed my patch I'll try to track it down :) Cheers,

Re: [PATCH 3/3] [UDP6]: Counter increment on BH mode

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 07:43:28PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > we could perhaps introduce stat_smp_processor_id(), which signals that > the CPU id is used for statistical purposes and does not have to be > exact? In any case, your patch looks good too. Unfortunately that doesn't work because w

[SNMP]: Fix SNMP counters with PREEMPT

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:03:19PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > How come you change SNMP_INC_STATS_USER() but not SNMP_INC_STATS() ? Heh, my brain must have blocked me from seeing it because it's too hard :) Let's fix it the stupid way first and I'll do a local_t conversion later. [SNMP]: Fix

Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with you completely, Herbet, which is why I was surprised that > my first apparently did not resolve the issue. I felt it should > have Did it change all occurrences of read_lock(&bond->lock) to read_lock_bh? If so I better look at the lo

Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1: cat /proc/net/packet -> oops

2007-12-15 Thread Mariusz Kozlowski
Hello, As one of usual tests I run the following script: for i in `find /proc -type f`; do echo -n "cat $i > /dev/null ... "; cat $i > /dev/null; echo "done"; done This time the culprit is /proc/net/packet. cat process gets killed $ cat /proc/net/packet Segment

Re: [PATCH] e1000: Dump the eeprom when a user encounters a bad checksum

2007-12-15 Thread Kok, Auke
Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 15:35 -0800, Auke Kok wrote: >> +printk(KERN_ERR "/*/\n"); >> +printk(KERN_ERR "Current EEPROM: 0x%04x\nCalculated: 0x%04x\n", >> + csum_old, csum_new); > > Multiline printks need a KERN_ after every newline. Pe

Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3

2007-12-15 Thread Johannes Berg
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 00:16 -0800, Ray Lee wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM, Gabriel C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Correct, absolutely no traffic. So if it works for you, then either > > it's something that got fixed between -rc3

Re: [PATCH 3/3] [UDP6]: Counter increment on BH mode

2007-12-15 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ob Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:17:23AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > Never mind, we already have that in local_t and as Alexey correctly > > points out, USER is still going to be the expensive variant with the > > preempt_disable (well until BH gets threa

Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-R} usage.

2007-12-15 Thread Jarek Poplawski
Andrew Morton wrote, On 12/15/2007 12:13 PM: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:24 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... >> I applied the patch and then tried my test again. This time my system >> locked up. >> Perhaps I should open a new thread for this, since the problem looks >> prett

Re: [PATCH 3/3] [UDP6]: Counter increment on BH mode

2007-12-15 Thread Eric Dumazet
Herbert Xu a écrit : Ob Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:17:23AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: Never mind, we already have that in local_t and as Alexey correctly points out, USER is still going to be the expensive variant with the preempt_disable (well until BH gets threaded). So how about this patch? I d

Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-R} usage.

2007-12-15 Thread Jarek Poplawski
Andrew Morton wrote, On 12/15/2007 12:13 PM: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:24 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Dec 14, 2007 6:36 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:13:21 -0500 >>> "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... Pid: 6944, c

Re: [PATCH 2/4] [CORE]: datagram: mem_scheudle functions

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:15:04AM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote: > This patch includes changes in network core sub system for memory > accounting. > > Memory scheduling, charging, uncharging and reclaiming functions are > added. These functions use sk_forward_alloc to store socket local > accounting. T

Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9543] New: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c (1055)

2007-12-15 Thread Andy Gospodarek
On Dec 14, 2007 11:10 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:47:22PM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > > > I'm guessing if we go back to using a write-lock for bond->lock this > > will go back to working again, but I'm not totally convinced since there > > are plenty

Re: [PATCH 2/4] datagram: mem_scheudle functions

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 07:10:45PM -0500, Hideo AOKI wrote: > > Because we have to call wmem_schedule function in ip_append_data() > which is used by several protocols both stream and datagram. > I just thought adding the sk_wmem_schedule() was only way to call > proper function from ip_append_data

Re: [PATCH 3/3] [UDP6]: Counter increment on BH mode

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
Ob Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:17:23AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > Never mind, we already have that in local_t and as Alexey correctly > points out, USER is still going to be the expensive variant with the > preempt_disable (well until BH gets threaded). So how about this patch? I didn't hear any o

Re: Reproducible data corruption with sendfile+vsftp - splice regression?

2007-12-15 Thread Holger Hoffstaette
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:44:26 +0100, Francois Romieu wrote: > Holger Hoffstaette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : [...] >> Maybe turning off sendfile or NAPI just lead to random success - so far >> it really looks like tso on the r8169 is the common cause. > > TSO on the r8169 is the magic switch but the reg

Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL()

2007-12-15 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:48:10AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > When Eric said > > > Way way deep in mutex debugging on the slowpath there is a unreadable > > and incomprehensible WARN_ON in muxtex_trylock that will trigger if > > you have 10 tons of debugging turned on, and you are in, > > int

[PATCH] sky2: check pci_register_driver() error

2007-12-15 Thread Akinobu Mita
Check pci_register_driver() error and clean up debugfs entries if error happened. Cc: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- drivers/net/sky2.c |9 - 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: 2.6-git/drivers/net/sky2.c =

Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-R} usage.

2007-12-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:58:24 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007 6:36 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:13:21 -0500 > > "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry Andrew, I don't know who to forward this problem to.

Re: [NETFILTER] xt_hashlimit : speedups hash_dst()

2007-12-15 Thread Eric Dumazet
Jarek Poplawski a écrit : Eric Dumazet wrote, On 12/14/2007 10:37 PM: Jarek Poplawski a écrit : Eric Dumazet wrote, On 12/14/2007 12:09 PM: ... + /* +* Instead of returning hash % ht->cfg.size (implying a divide) +* we return the high 32 bits of the (hash * ht->cfg.size

Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL()

2007-12-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:10:21 +0800 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:44:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > That sounds like a bug in mutex_trylock() to me. > > I was relying on > > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2007/9/28/325129 > > w

Re: [NETFILTER] xt_hashlimit : speedups hash_dst()

2007-12-15 Thread Jarek Poplawski
Eric Dumazet wrote, On 12/14/2007 10:37 PM: > Jarek Poplawski a écrit : >> Eric Dumazet wrote, On 12/14/2007 12:09 PM: >> ... >> >>> + /* >>> +* Instead of returning hash % ht->cfg.size (implying a divide) >>> +* we return the high 32 bits of the (hash * ht->cfg.size) that will >>> +

Re: Reproducible data corruption with sendfile+vsftp - splice regression?

2007-12-15 Thread Holger Hoffstaette
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:19:43 +0100, Holger Hoffstaette wrote: > I have now gone back to enable TSO since vsftp with sendfile really seems > to be the only app that causes this. I have simply set it to > use_sendfile=NO and no corruption occurs at all; the machine is stable and > fast. In the good

[PATCH take2] [AX25] circular locking with AX25 connection timeout

2007-12-15 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:29:28PM +0100, Bernard Pidoux wrote: > Hi, > > This patch cancels a circular locking conflict that appeared with a timeout > of an AX25 connection. > > signed off by Jarek Poplawski One spurious space less here, and maybe a few more words to the changelog. Regards, Jar

Re: [PATCH 03/29] mm: slb: add knowledge of reserve pages

2007-12-15 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Friday 14 December 2007 14:51, I wrote: > On Friday 14 December 2007 07:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Note that false sharing of slab pages is still possible between two > unrelated writeout processes, both of which obey rules for their own > writeout path, but the pinned combination does not. Th

SACK scoreboard (Was: Re: [RFC PATCH net-2.6.25 uncompilable] [TCP]: Avoid breaking GSOed skbs when SACKed one-by-one)

2007-12-15 Thread Ilpo Järvinen
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote: > Interesting approach, but I think there is limited value to this > (arguably) complex form. > > The core issue is that the data and the SACK state are maintained in > the same datastructure. The complexity in all the state management > and fixups in your

Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3

2007-12-15 Thread Ray Lee
On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, Ray Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM, Gabriel C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Correct, absolutely no traffic. So if it works for you, then either > it's something that got fixed between -rc3 and -rc5, or something odd > when I did a make oldconfig, I