Re: Fw: kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:1028!

Re: Fw: kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:1028!

[Rusty Russell]

In message <20030507.042003.26512841.davem@redhat.com> you write:
> It has to be from some of the skb linearization changes.
> I can't think of any other change we've made that would
> make this start to happen.

Yep, culprit is obvious stupid bug.  This indicates a serious lack of
testing on my part 8(

Jens, does this help?
Rusty.

diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal linux-2.5.69-bk2/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c working-2.5.69-bk2-fix-nat/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c
--- linux-2.5.69-bk2/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c	2003-05-08 10:31:08.000000000 +1000
+++ working-2.5.69-bk2-fix-nat/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c	2003-05-08 11:19:04.000000000 +1000
@@ -870,7 +870,8 @@ icmp_reply_translation(struct sk_buff **
 	   adjustment, so make sure the current checksum is correct. */
 	if ((*pskb)->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY
 	    && (u16)csum_fold(skb_checksum(*pskb, (*pskb)->nh.iph->ihl*4,
-					   (*pskb)->len, 0)))
+					   (*pskb)->len
+					   - (*pskb)->nh.iph->ihl*4, 0)))
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Must be RELATED */


--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.

Re: Fw: kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:1028!

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, May 08 2003, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <20030507.042003.26512841.davem@redhat.com> you write:
> > It has to be from some of the skb linearization changes.
> > I can't think of any other change we've made that would
> > make this start to happen.
> 
> Yep, culprit is obvious stupid bug.  This indicates a serious lack of
> testing on my part 8(

One would think so, since it doesn't even get to the login :)

> Jens, does this help?

[snip]

Nope, it still dies hard. I didn't log the oops this time (box is
headless and I need to move it to do so), but it hung hard before it was
done booting.

Want me to log a new oops?

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: Fw: kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:1028!

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, May 08 2003, DillFritz wrote:
> NO SPAMING!
> I DONT' WANT THIS KIND OF MAILS.
> REMOOVE ME ASAP!!

Can one of the postmasters please deal with this idiot, my patience ran
out several private mails ago. Apparently he has no concept of mailing
lists. And a broken caps lock.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: Fw: kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:1028!

[Matti Aarnio]

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:50:46AM +0200, DillFritz wrote:
> NO SPAMING!
> I DONT' WANT THIS KIND OF MAILS.
> REMOOVE ME ASAP!!

  Can't.  We don't have subscribers in   anzeider-luzern.ch  domain.
  Hmm..  We do seem to have   dill_fritz@gmx.net   is that your address ?

  This would be very easily solved, if you could supply me
  (at:  postmaster@vger.kernel.org)  all the  "Received:"  headers
  from a message that has arrived via  linux-kernel   list.

  All emails have those "Received:" headers,  most microsoft email
  clients just make it absolutely horribly difficult to see them.
  There are apparently as many ways as there are software versions:

    http://www.haltabuse.org/help/headers/microsoft.shtml


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jens Axboe [mailto:axboe@suse.de]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2003 10:48
> An: DillFritz
> Betreff: Re: Fw: kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:1028!
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 08 2003, DillFritz wrote:
> > I said remove me and do not send me mails:
> > I'm not intereste in this kind of mails.
> 
> REMOVE YOU FROM WHAT, MORON!?
> 
> I'm ignoring further mails from you. Why the fuck would it be my
> responsibility to remove you from a list you subscribed yourself to?
> 
> Get your priorities straight. Perhaps start out by checking exactly
> which list you are on. I'll give you some help (even though you
> definitely don't deserve any), it's obviously one of these two:
> 
> laforge@netfilter.org
> 
> or
> 
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> 
> Sheeesh, the nerve of some people.
> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:1028!

[David S. Miller]

   From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
   Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 11:20:27 +1000

   Yep, culprit is obvious stupid bug.  This indicates a serious lack of
   testing on my part 8(
   
   Jens, does this help?

There were two cases of the same bug, you fixed only one
instance :-)

Jens, try this patch instead.

--- net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c.~1~	Thu May  8 11:23:22 2003
+++ net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c	Thu May  8 11:25:56 2003
@@ -861,6 +861,7 @@
 	} *inside;
 	unsigned int i;
 	struct ip_nat_info *info = &conntrack->nat.info;
+	int hdrlen;
 
 	if (!skb_ip_make_writable(pskb,(*pskb)->nh.iph->ihl*4+sizeof(*inside)))
 		return 0;
@@ -868,10 +869,12 @@
 
 	/* We're actually going to mangle it beyond trivial checksum
 	   adjustment, so make sure the current checksum is correct. */
-	if ((*pskb)->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY
-	    && (u16)csum_fold(skb_checksum(*pskb, (*pskb)->nh.iph->ihl*4,
-					   (*pskb)->len, 0)))
-		return 0;
+	if ((*pskb)->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY) {
+		hdrlen = (*pskb)->nh.iph->ihl * 4;
+		if ((u16)csum_fold(skb_checksum(*pskb, hdrlen,
+						(*pskb)->len - hdrlen, 0)))
+			return 0;
+	}
 
 	/* Must be RELATED */
 	IP_NF_ASSERT((*pskb)->nfct
@@ -948,10 +951,12 @@
 	}
 	READ_UNLOCK(&ip_nat_lock);
 
+	hdrlen = (*pskb)->nh.iph->ihl * 4;
+
 	inside->icmp.checksum = 0;
-	inside->icmp.checksum = csum_fold(skb_checksum(*pskb,
-						       (*pskb)->nh.iph->ihl*4,
-						       (*pskb)->len, 0));
+	inside->icmp.checksum = csum_fold(skb_checksum(*pskb, hdrlen,
+						       (*pskb)->len - hdrlen,
+						       0));
 	return 1;
 
  unlock_fail:

Re: kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:1028!

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, May 08 2003, David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
>    Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 11:20:27 +1000
> 
>    Yep, culprit is obvious stupid bug.  This indicates a serious lack of
>    testing on my part 8(
>    
>    Jens, does this help?
> 
> There were two cases of the same bug, you fixed only one
> instance :-)
> 
> Jens, try this patch instead.

I went to apply it to bk-current as of this morning, but I see it's
already in. And bk-current does indeed boot and (appears to :) work,
thanks Dave!

-- 
Jens Axboe