From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752343AbZLNF4i (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:56:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751993AbZLNF4i (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:56:38 -0500 Received: from gw1.cosmosbay.com ([212.99.114.194]:35844 "EHLO gw1.cosmosbay.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751903AbZLNF4h (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:56:37 -0500 Message-ID: <4B25D38F.1090702@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:56:31 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: lists@nerdbynature.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Badness at net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c:293 References: <20091212.010340.227842186.davem@davemloft.net> <4B2360BF.5000102@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B2360BF.5000102@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (gw1.cosmosbay.com [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:56:32 +0100 (CET) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le 12/12/2009 10:22, Eric Dumazet a écrit : > Le 12/12/2009 10:03, David Miller a écrit : >> From: Christian Kujau >> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:43:10 -0800 (PST) >> >>> today I upgraded from 2.6.32-rc7 to the latest -git (mainline) and after a >>> few hours the messages below appeared in the log. Apparently "privoxy" was >>> very busy handling connections, but the messages never appeared with >>> earlier kernels. >>> >>> Full dmesg & .config is on: >>> http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.33-git/inet_accept/ >> >> Yeah I started seeing this on one of my machines too, the >> assertion is: >> >> WARN_ON(newsk->sk_state == TCP_SYN_RECV); >> >> I wonder if some of the refactorings we did to allow per-route >> SACK/DSACK/etc. controls messed some sequence of state changes >> on TCP sockets. But I can't find anything obvious in those >> commits. > > Could it be about syncookies patches ? > > tcp_create_openreq_child() changes ? > It seems to me tcp_create_openreq_child() doesnt properly initialize newtp->cookie_values to NULL, but this should not produce warnings like that ? Sorry to not provides a proper patch now, I have to run...