* Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3
@ 2007-12-14 1:46 Ray Lee
2007-12-15 2:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ray Lee @ 2007-12-14 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev, LKML
tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
(-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
I'll check current tip on the weekend when I'll have the luxury to
have my main system down long enough for a test. Right now I'm kinda
up against a deadline, but didn't want to leave it unreported. Should
be easy for someone else to confirm or deny whether current tip has
the problem.
Ray
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3
2007-12-14 1:46 Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3 Ray Lee
@ 2007-12-15 2:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-15 2:41 ` Gabriel C
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2007-12-15 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ray Lee; +Cc: netdev, LKML
On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
> tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
> fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
> (-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
> I'll check current tip on the weekend when I'll have the luxury to
> have my main system down long enough for a test. Right now I'm kinda
> up against a deadline, but didn't want to leave it unreported. Should
> be easy for someone else to confirm or deny whether current tip has
> the problem.
FYI, I have created a bugzilla entry for this issue at:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9568
Thanks,
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3
2007-12-15 2:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2007-12-15 2:41 ` Gabriel C
2007-12-15 7:09 ` Ray Lee
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel C @ 2007-12-15 2:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki; +Cc: Ray Lee, netdev, LKML
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
>> tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
>> fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
>> (-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
>> I'll check current tip on the weekend when I'll have the luxury to
>> have my main system down long enough for a test. Right now I'm kinda
>> up against a deadline, but didn't want to leave it unreported. Should
>> be easy for someone else to confirm or deny whether current tip has
>> the problem.
>
> FYI, I have created a bugzilla entry for this issue at:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9568
Hmm what do you mean by empty ? it does not capturing anything on that interface ?
I do run -rc5-git with wireshark-0.99.6 and tshark -i eth0 or lo works here.
snip
...
-- sudo tshark -i eth0
Capturing on eth0
1197685732.785920 192.168.0.1 -> 239.255.255.250 SSDP NOTIFY * HTTP/1.1
1197685732.790126 192.168.0.1 -> 239.255.255.250 SSDP NOTIFY * HTTP/1.1
1197685732.793613 192.168.0.1 -> 239.255.255.250 SSDP NOTIFY * HTTP/1.1
1197685732.797656 192.168.0.1 -> 239.255.255.250 SSDP NOTIFY * HTTP/1.1
...
1197685738.680962 77.37.20.73 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 44544 > 44625 [PSH, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=20 Win=88 Len=27 TSV=914082460 TSER=145333592
1197685738.681007 192.168.0.2 -> 77.37.20.73 TCP 44625 > 44544 [ACK] Seq=20 Ack=27 Win=1002 Len=0 TSV=145333645 TSER=914082460
1197685745.994576 192.168.0.2 -> 81.169.185.129 NTP NTP client
1197685746.058523 81.169.185.129 -> 192.168.0.2 NTP NTP server
1197685749.058576 192.168.0.2 -> 85.214.68.60 NTP NTP client
1197685749.121771 85.214.68.60 -> 192.168.0.2 NTP NTP server
1197685751.391157 77.37.20.73 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 44544 > 44625 [PSH, ACK] Seq=27 Ack=20 Win=88 Len=55 TSV=914085637 TSER=145333645
1197685751.391201 192.168.0.2 -> 77.37.20.73 TCP 44625 > 44544 [ACK] Seq=20 Ack=82 Win=1002 Len=0 TSV=145346355 TSER=914085637
....
-- sudo tshark -i lo
Capturing on lo
1197686288.330222 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 53122 > http [SYN] Seq=0 Len=0 MSS=16396 TSV=145883294 TSER=0 WS=6
1197686288.330225 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP http > 53122 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=32768 Len=0 MSS=16396 TSV=145883294 TSER=145883294 WS=6
1197686288.330251 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 53122 > http [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=32832 Len=0 TSV=145883294 TSER=145883294
1197686288.330327 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 HTTP GET /.KDE/kdegames-3.97.1_747147.tar.bz2 HTTP/1.0
1197686288.330357 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP http > 53122 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=132 Win=33856 Len=0 TSV=145883294 TSER=145883294
1197686288.474624 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 HTTP HTTP/1.1 200 OK (application/x-bzip2)
1197686288.474684 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 53122 > http [ACK] Seq=132 Ack=16385 Win=49344 Len=0 TSV=145883439 TSER=145883439
....
snip
Regards,
Gabriel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3
2007-12-15 2:41 ` Gabriel C
@ 2007-12-15 7:09 ` Ray Lee
2007-12-15 8:16 ` Ray Lee
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ray Lee @ 2007-12-15 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriel C; +Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, netdev, LKML
On Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM, Gabriel C <nix.or.die@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
> >> tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
> >> fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
> >> (-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
> >> I'll check current tip on the weekend when I'll have the luxury to
> >> have my main system down long enough for a test. Right now I'm kinda
> >> up against a deadline, but didn't want to leave it unreported. Should
> >> be easy for someone else to confirm or deny whether current tip has
> >> the problem.
> >
> > FYI, I have created a bugzilla entry for this issue at:
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9568
>
> Hmm what do you mean by empty ? it does not capturing anything on that interface ?
Correct, absolutely no traffic. So if it works for you, then either
it's something that got fixed between -rc3 and -rc5, or something odd
when I did a make oldconfig, I suppose. (Or because I'm on an x86-64
kernel?) Regardless, -rc5 is currently building, and I'll try it in
the morning.
> I do run -rc5-git with wireshark-0.99.6 and tshark -i eth0 or lo works here.
Excellent. Thank you for checking!
Rafael: I'll update the bugzilla as warranted after testing.
Ray
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3
2007-12-15 7:09 ` Ray Lee
@ 2007-12-15 8:16 ` Ray Lee
2007-12-15 19:57 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ray Lee @ 2007-12-15 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriel C; +Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, netdev, LKML
On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, Ray Lee <ray@madrabbit.org> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM, Gabriel C <nix.or.die@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Correct, absolutely no traffic. So if it works for you, then either
> it's something that got fixed between -rc3 and -rc5, or something odd
> when I did a make oldconfig, I suppose. (Or because I'm on an x86-64
> kernel?) Regardless, -rc5 is currently building, and I'll try it in
> the morning.
-rc5 works great. Really don't know what's different between my -rc3
and -rc5 builds. The diff of .config between the two doesn't show
anything obvious, so perhaps it was something fixed in the interim.
I've gone ahead and closed the bugzilla entry, btw. Thanks, and sorry
for the false (or tardy) alarm.
Ray
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3
2007-12-15 8:16 ` Ray Lee
@ 2007-12-15 19:57 ` Johannes Berg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Berg @ 2007-12-15 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ray Lee; +Cc: Gabriel C, Rafael J. Wysocki, netdev, LKML
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 693 bytes --]
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 00:16 -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, Ray Lee <ray@madrabbit.org> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM, Gabriel C <nix.or.die@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Correct, absolutely no traffic. So if it works for you, then either
> > it's something that got fixed between -rc3 and -rc5, or something odd
> > when I did a make oldconfig, I suppose. (Or because I'm on an x86-64
> > kernel?) Regardless, -rc5 is currently building, and I'll try it in
> > the morning.
>
> -rc5 works great. Really don't know what's different between my -rc3
> and -rc5 builds.
I have an -rc3+wireless bits which also works great wrt.
tcpdump/wireshark.
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-12-15 19:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-12-14 1:46 Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3 Ray Lee
2007-12-15 2:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-15 2:41 ` Gabriel C
2007-12-15 7:09 ` Ray Lee
2007-12-15 8:16 ` Ray Lee
2007-12-15 19:57 ` Johannes Berg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).