Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*BUG\:\s+dst\s+underflow\s+\(again\)\s*$/: 40 ]

Total 40 documents matching your query.

1. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: adi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04 Nov 2004 09:15:17 -0500
Could you turn off netfilter and see if this continues to happen? Know how to reproduce this? ;-> cheers, jamal
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00153.html (10,414 bytes)

2. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: arzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:18:01 -0800
That's one possible angle, but let's look at the tracepoints more closely. BTW Lennert, the decoded addresses are extremely helpful. Thanks. Jeff, could you similarly decode the ones that you seem to
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00171.html (10,349 bytes)

3. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:53:55 +0900 (JST)
Oh,yes, something like this? Signed-off-by: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> == net/ipv6/udp.c 1.76 vs edited == -- 1.76/net/ipv6/udp.c 2004-10-26 11:47:26 +09:00 +++ edited/net/ipv6/udp.c
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00172.html (11,094 bytes)

4. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: HIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:05:41 -0500
David S. Miller wrote: Jeff, could you similarly decode the ones that you seem to get? That would be an incredibly useful datapoint. If you've provided this already, my bad and please point me at whe
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00173.html (14,462 bytes)

5. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: oshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:14:33 -0800
Thanks a lot. Yes, but do you actually install any IPSEC rules into your system? The only way xfrm_lookup() can ever fall (and call that BUG'ing dst_release() in udpv6_sendmsg()) is if you have at le
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00174.html (10,761 bytes)

6. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: rzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:16:18 -0800
Something, but not quite. :-) This change you propose adds a leak, you have to modify xfrm_lookup() as well. I'm mid-way through such changes, but it looks something like this (BTW, note the addrconf
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00175.html (18,190 bytes)

7. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: " <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:34:45 -0500
David S. Miller wrote: On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:05:41 -0500 Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I know this question wasn't directed at me, but, I do always compile ipsec stuff into my kernel, in ad
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00177.html (10,741 bytes)

8. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: zik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:38:19 -0500
BTW to netdev, there is IMHO no excuse not to test IPv6 ;-) Plugging... Check out http://linux.yyz.us/ipv6-fc2-howto.html for starting points. Quick and easy IPv6 "6to4 automatic tunneling" setup for
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00178.html (10,405 bytes)

9. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: zik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:44:34 +0900 (JST)
Ok, I leave it to you. --yoshfuji
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00180.html (9,820 bytes)

10. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: ik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:13:41 +0100
RIPE hands out IPv6 address space in chunks of /32, and it will only allocate such a /32 for you if you plan on assigning more than 200 /48's in two years. They specify that you should assign a /64 t
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00186.html (11,670 bytes)

11. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:14:27 +0100
I'm glad. IPSEC.. not that I know of. So unless my distro does stuff behind my back, no. How do I make sure? --L
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00187.html (10,064 bytes)

12. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: tenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:42:50 -0200
Lennert Buytenhek wrote: On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 10:18:01PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: BTW Lennert, the decoded addresses are extremely helpful. Thanks. I'm glad. But let me ask, do you have any I
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00188.html (11,033 bytes)

13. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:15:13 +0100
Thanks. Both machines I'm seeing this problem on have: No SPD entries. --L
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00192.html (10,190 bytes)

14. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: ndan.arakali@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:23:19 -0800
Well, xfrm_lookup() is returning an error somehow, that's the only way to execute dst_release() in udpv6_sendmsg(). And xfrm_lookup() only returns errors if IPSEC policies have been configured either
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00224.html (11,894 bytes)

15. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: ilhes <jt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:53:04 +1100
Actually, there are other calls to dst_release in udpv6_sendmsg. For example, the inline function ip6_dst_store may call dst_release. I'm afraid that we really have to audit all dst_release callers,
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00234.html (9,786 bytes)

16. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:02:11 +0100
Please note that my traces were made on the Fedora Core 2 kernel ('2.6.8-1.521smp'), where these codepaths all look a bit different. I'm hoping to try a mainline kernel on one of these boxes soon. ch
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00239.html (10,629 bytes)

17. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 06:17:19 -0200
Lennert Buytenhek wrote: On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:23:19PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: IPSEC.. not that I know of. So unless my distro does stuff behind my back, no. How do I make sure? setkey -DP
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg00240.html (15,075 bytes)

18. BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:39:09 -0400
As requested, I updated my kernel to see if the "BUG: dst underflow..." messages disappeared. Alas, they didn't. dmesg and .config from 2.6.9-final attached. Let me know what additional debugging inf
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00943.html (71,261 bytes)

19. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: HIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:51:59 +0900 (JST)
Okay, thanks, but hmm... (We haven't met this issue... I really want to know tow to reproduce...) Would you enable CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL, please? Thanks. --yoshfuji
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00944.html (8,095 bytes)

20. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: xxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:59:47 +0200
FWIW, I'm seeing loads of these on the kernel that comes with Fedora Core 2, also in the ipv6.ko module. I have 6to4 enabled, if that matters anything. % dmesg | grep BUG | sort | uniq BUG: dst under
/archives/netdev/2004-10/msg00945.html (8,785 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu