Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:52:32 +0300 (EEST) | From | "Ilpo Järvinen" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-rc8: WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2173 tcp_mark_head_lost+0x11d/0x150() |
| |
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 21:51 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 16:26 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > > > > > > > > trying to download things, I am seeing this (ignore the tainted, it is > > > > > from madwifi and although the module is loaded the device was never > > > > > used) > > > > > > > > > > Could anyone make sense of this please? > > > > > > > > ...I'm just trying to find out who and where invariants of the TCP code > > > > are broken. These were relatively recently enabled (pre-2.6.24 just didn't > > > > care too much). A number of long standing issues plus bugs from my > > > > modifications have been fixed because of the more rigid checking :-). > > > > > > > > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > > WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2173 tcp_mark_head_lost+0x11d/0x150() > > > > > > > > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > > WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:1771 tcp_enter_frto+0x267/0x270() > > > > > > > > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > > WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2532 tcp_ack+0x1a6f/0x1d60() > > > > > > > > Can you reproduce it? > > > > > > Yes, by massively downloading things :-) But I have no real recipe to > > > make it easily reproducible... > > > > Good :-), no need for recipes, just that you can trigger it more often > > tha once per month or so :-). I probably couldn't trigger it anyway here > > because they're often rather sensitive to network "weather", thus if you > > have problems in reproducing, doing tests around the same phase of the > > date cycle you saw it the first time might help. > > > > Here's a debug patch which expensively verifies TCP's state in a number > > of places during ACK to find first spot where the actual bug occurs. > > OK I am getting this now as the first spot: > > P: 4 L: 2 vs 2 S: 0 vs 3 F: 0 vs 0 w: 4023500226-4023505874 (0) > skb 0 f495c180 > skb 1 f480a180 > skb 2 f4994600 > head 3 f495c780 > skb 4 f5b32480 > TCP wq(s) LL < > WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:240 tcp_verify_wq+0x319/0x3c0() > > another one: > WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:1475 __tcp_push_pending_frames+0x70/0x830() > > > P: 4 L: 2 vs 2 S: 0 vs 3 F: 0 vs 0 w: 4023500226-4023505874 (0) > skb 0 f495c180 > skb 1 f480a180 > skb 2 f4994600 > head 3 f495c780 > skb 4 f5b32480 > TCP wq(s) LL < > TCP wq(h) +-++< > l2 s3 f0 p4 seq: su4023500226 hs241530103 sn4023505874 > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > WARNING: at net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:240 tcp_verify_wq+0x319/0x3c0()
Please don't cut the log! It is caught here because 2+3 > 4 :-) but I need the full log with stacktraces this time to figure it out.
-- i. |  |