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.

21. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04 Nov 2004 09:15:17 -0500
Jeff/Lennert Could you turn off netfilter and see if this continues to happen? Know how to reproduce this? ;-> cheers, jamal
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01207.html (10,651 bytes)

22. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01225.html (10,594 bytes)

23. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01226.html (11,259 bytes)

24. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:05:41 -0500
I've compiled IPv6 into my router's kernel image, so next time I reboot, I should be able to get at symbol info out of the BUGs a bit more easily. But let me ask, do you have any IPSEC policies in th
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01227.html (14,878 bytes)

25. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01228.html (11,058 bytes)

26. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01229.html (18,402 bytes)

27. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01231.html (11,115 bytes)

28. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <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/msg01232.html (10,731 bytes)

29. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:44:34 +0900 (JST)
Ok, I leave it to you. --yoshfuji
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01234.html (9,973 bytes)

30. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01240.html (12,052 bytes)

31. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01241.html (10,350 bytes)

32. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:42:50 -0200
BTW Lennert, the decoded addresses are extremely helpful. Thanks. I'm glad. But let me ask, do you have any IPSEC policies in the kernel when these BUGs trigger? If so, I'm pretty sure I know what t
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01242.html (11,223 bytes)

33. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01246.html (10,505 bytes)

34. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01278.html (12,251 bytes)

35. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01288.html (9,868 bytes)

36. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg01293.html (11,030 bytes)

37. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 06:17:19 -0200
IPSEC.. not that I know of. So unless my distro does stuff behind my back, no. How do I make sure? setkey -DP Thanks. Both machines I'm seeing this problem on have: No SPD entries. Well, xfrm_lookup
/archives/netdev/2004-11/msg01294.html (15,059 bytes)

38. BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
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/msg02441.html (71,259 bytes)

39. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / <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/msg02442.html (8,143 bytes)

40. Re: BUG: dst underflow (again) (score: 1)
Author: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/msg02443.html (8,891 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu