Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1997-48,: Re: Examine route.c! -- two bugs fixed -- patch attached!

# Re: Examine route.c! -- two bugs fixed -- patch attached!

Daniel Ryde (ryde@tripnet.se)
Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:00:02 +0100 (CET)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: patch for 2.1.69 buffer.c"
- Previous message: Rik van Riel: "Re: Kernel Error Messages in /var/log"
- In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Examine route.c! -- two bugs fixed -- patch attached!"
- Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Examine route.c! -- two bugs fixed -- patch attached!"

On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Alan Cox wrote:

> > ip_rt_put() only frees a route if this is a) not cached and b) if
> > the reference count is exactly one. This is in the most cases correct.
> > If Philip found out all possible drops this may be a reason.
>
> Im beginning to suspect we have a kernel/interrupt context problem here and
> the reference counters arent safe

More info: I have a tcpdump during this allocation increase.
Would that be intresting?
It's about 22 seconds of recording, and 2.3Mb in size. (the first try was
68Mb... ;)

I found out yet one more thing in reproduceing this more reliably: to
make the 'somehost' a machine on the other side of the "router-firewall"
machine, more precicly the backup station (really slow thing). It might
has to do whith some packet loss, maby that the firewall gets too busy and
drops some important packets, maby in conjunction with a time window
that gets too large. Or time-window in conjunction with interrupts.

/Ryde

- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: patch for 2.1.69 buffer.c"
- Previous message: Rik van Riel: "Re: Kernel Error Messages in /var/log"
- In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Examine route.c! -- two bugs fixed -- patch attached!"
- Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Examine route.c! -- two bugs fixed -- patch attached!"