Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2011 11:56:09 -0400 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. |
| |
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:50:46PM -0700, Justin Mattock wrote:
> [ 2862.310349] WARNING: at net/ipv4/route.c:1668 ip_rt_bug+0x5c/0x62()
Awesome, adding that WARN_ON paid off. This is the same bug I've been trying to reproduce the last few weeks. DaveM mentioned that it means we used an input route for packet output.
> [ 2862.310414] Pid: 6153, comm: gcm-session Not tainted > 2.6.39-04906-g5e152b4-dirty #2 > [ 2862.310417] Call Trace: > [ 2862.310424] [<ffffffff8104c634>] warn_slowpath_common+0x83/0x9b > [ 2862.310430] [<ffffffff8104c666>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x1c > [ 2862.310434] [<ffffffff814095c9>] ip_rt_bug+0x5c/0x62 > [ 2862.310439] [<ffffffff814112a1>] dst_output+0x19/0x1d > [ 2862.310443] [<ffffffff81412aa0>] ip_local_out+0x20/0x25 > [ 2862.310448] [<ffffffff814139c9>] ip_send_skb+0x19/0x58 > [ 2862.310453] [<ffffffff8142fa4e>] udp_send_skb+0x239/0x29b > [ 2862.310458] [<ffffffff814310f0>] udp_sendmsg+0x5a1/0x7d4 > [ 2862.310464] [<ffffffff81079408>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf > [ 2862.310469] [<ffffffff8141139c>] ? ip_select_ident+0x3d/0x3d > [ 2862.310475] [<ffffffff810525b8>] ? local_bh_enable_ip+0xe/0x10 > [ 2862.310481] [<ffffffff8148f131>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_bh+0x31/0x35 > [ 2862.310486] [<ffffffff813d41a6>] ? release_sock+0x14c/0x155 > [ 2862.310490] [<ffffffff814386ac>] inet_sendmsg+0x66/0x6f > [ 2862.310495] [<ffffffff813d02b0>] sock_sendmsg+0xe6/0x109 > [ 2862.310501] [<ffffffff8107d63f>] ? lock_acquire+0xe1/0x109 > [ 2862.310505] [<ffffffff8107d535>] ? lock_release+0x1aa/0x1d3 > [ 2862.310512] [<ffffffff810ed549>] ? might_fault+0xa5/0xac > [ 2862.310516] [<ffffffff813ceb34>] ? copy_from_user+0x2f/0x31 > [ 2862.310521] [<ffffffff813d1f34>] sys_sendto+0x132/0x174 > [ 2862.310526] [<ffffffff81495cfa>] ? sysret_check+0x2e/0x69 > [ 2862.310531] [<ffffffff8107b016>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x13f/0x172 > [ 2862.310537] [<ffffffff8109fd4d>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x11c/0x148 > [ 2862.310542] [<ffffffff8121debe>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f > [ 2862.310546] [<ffffffff81495cc2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > [ 2862.310549] ---[ end trace 2d2332adaa8bf2b5 ]--- > [ 2863.373889] ip_rt_bug: 10.0.0.10 -> 255.255.255.255, ?
The common thing between your bug and the trace I triggered was the destination ip reported. A clue maybe ?
Dave
| |