netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rwlock recursion on CPU#0, netfilter related?

To: Pekka Pietikainen <pp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: rwlock recursion on CPU#0, netfilter related?
From: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:05:38 +0200
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050928145815.GA421@ee.oulu.fi>
References: <20050925105834.GA15243@ee.oulu.fi> <20050925134344.GJ731@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <20050925201945.GA21176@ee.oulu.fi> <20050928145815.GA421@ee.oulu.fi>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: mutt-ng devel-20050619 (Debian)
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 05:58:15PM +0300, Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 11:19:45PM +0300, Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
> > Enabled, so this could be it. But 2.6.14-rc2-git4 did crash too (although
> > it did take a bit longer for that to happen), and the changelog does state:
> Ok, it looks like that patch was the thing after all. I now tried the latest
> fedora-devel kernel (1.1582, based on 2.6.14-rc2-git6) and the box has been
> running for a few hours happily. Could be the fedora kernel that claimed to
> be git4 actually wasn't, or the git4 changelog was really a post-git4
> changelog :). But anyway, bug is gone.

great news.

> This one is still around, so it's a different bug. Looks like it's a 64-bit
> issue, a 32-bit ping gives realistic ping times. tcpdump timestamps are also
> affected, they're completely off too. So looks like someone broke packet
> timestamps on 64-bit some time after 2.6.13.

luckily I'm not the core network maintainer ;)

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>                   http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

Attachment: pgpymckkMzUWX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>