lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-05 19:55    [W:0.044 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site