>On 11/08/2018 04:42 PM, 배석진 wrote:
>> Thanks for testing.
>>>
>>> This is not a pristine net-next tree, this dump seems unrelated to the
>>>patch ?
>>
>>
>> yes, looks like that.
>> but only when using your patch, panic came. even right after packet
>>recieving..
>> without that, there's no pr
On 11/08/2018 04:42 PM, 배석진 wrote:
>> Thanks for testing.
>>
>> This is not a pristine net-next tree, this dump seems unrelated to the patch
>> ?
>
>
> yes, looks like that.
> but only when using your patch, panic came. even right after packet
> recieving..
> without that, there's no problem
>Thanks for testing.
>
>This is not a pristine net-next tree, this dump seems unrelated to the patch ?
yes, looks like that.
but only when using your patch, panic came. even right after packet recieving..
without that, there's no problem except defrag issue. it's odd.. :p
I couldn't more debuggin
On 11/07/2018 11:58 PM, 배석진 wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> Sender : Eric Dumazet
>> Date : 2018-11-08 15:13 (GMT+9)
>> Title : Re: (2) (2) [Kernel][NET] Bug report on packet defragmenting
>>
>> On 11/07/2018 08:26 PM, Eric Dumazet w
>- Original Message -
>Sender : Eric Dumazet
>Date : 2018-11-08 15:13 (GMT+9)
>Title : Re: (2) (2) [Kernel][NET] Bug report on packet defragmenting
>
>On 11/07/2018 08:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/07/2018 08:10 PM, 배석진 wr
On 11/07/2018 08:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 11/07/2018 08:10 PM, 배석진 wrote:
>>> - Original Message -
>>> Sender : Eric Dumazet
>>> Date : 2018-11-08 12:57 (GMT+9)
>>> Title : Re: (2) [Kernel][NET] Bug report on packet d
On 11/07/2018 08:10 PM, 배석진 wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> Sender : Eric Dumazet
>> Date : 2018-11-08 12:57 (GMT+9)
>> Title : Re: (2) [Kernel][NET] Bug report on packet defragmenting
>>
>> On 11/07/2018 07:24 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> - Original Message -
> Sender : Eric Dumazet
> Date : 2018-11-08 12:57 (GMT+9)
> Title : Re: (2) [Kernel][NET] Bug report on packet defragmenting
>
> On 11/07/2018 07:24 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > Sure, it is better if RPS is smarter, bu
On 11/07/2018 07:24 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Sure, it is better if RPS is smarter, but if there is a bug in IPv6 defrag
> unit
> we must investigate and root-cause it.
BTW, IPv4 defrag seems to have the same issue.
On 11/07/2018 06:05 PM, 배석진 wrote:
> - Original Message -
> Sender : Eric Dumazet
> Date : 2018-11-08 10:44 (GMT+9)
> Title : Re: [Kernel][NET] Bug report on packet defragmenting
>
>> On 11/07/2018 05:29 PM, 배석진 wrote:
>>
>>>
- Original Message -
Sender : Eric Dumazet
Date : 2018-11-08 10:44 (GMT+9)
Title : Re: [Kernel][NET] Bug report on packet defragmenting
> On 11/07/2018 05:29 PM, 배석진 wrote:
>
> > If ipv6_defrag hook is not excuted simultaneously, then it's ok.
> &g
On 11/07/2018 05:29 PM, 배석진 wrote:
> If ipv6_defrag hook is not excuted simultaneously, then it's ok.
> ipv6_defrag hook can handle that. [exam 3]
This seems wrong.
This is the root cause, we should not try to work around it but fix it.
There is no guarantee that RSS/RPS/RFS can help here, p
Hello,
This is bae working on Samsung Elec.
We got the problem that fragmented SIP packet couldn't be deliverd to user
layer.
And found that they were stoled at HOOK function, ipv6_defrag.
In condition with SMP and RPS.
After first fragmented packet, they have no further network header except i
13 matches
Mail list logo
