----- Original Message ----- From: "Lennert Buytenhek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Oleg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Bart De Schuymer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Bridge] 2.4.17 kernel panic...
> Hi! Hello, > I still haven't been able to reproduce it :( Do you still have the ability > to test some things? If so, can you try the following (incremental) > patches from http://bridge.sf.net/patchtracker-nf.html ? My problem is solved, at least the biggest problem. I was going to wait until I bought some new nics to test as well before I post this, but seems like it's taking a while for me to buy them ;) This will happen when bughunting ebtables on a sparc is finished. My machine was overclocked (forgot it was) and the three nics were too much I guess. It's now underclocked and I don't get any panics anymore with those ping -s 20000 and above. More details: With overclocking I could crash the bridge by sending a ping -s 40000 from a box on the one side to a box on the other side of the bridge. Now I can do a ping -s 60000 with no packet losses like that. The bridge also crashed when doing those pings from the bridge box itself. But if I now do a ping -s 20000 from the bridge machine to another box I still get packet losses. But, no kernel panics... I did a ping -s 60000 and let it wait a while, this message showed up on the console: >From destination_box: Frag reassembly time exceeded. ping -s 20000 gives 50 % packet loss, with the destination box giving the above message for the "lost" packets. Hmm, even ping -s 2000 gives this message (and so, packet loss) for some echo requests. The bridge box is running on 300 Mhz now (underclocked, it's a 500 Mhz box). Maybe this is a performance problem? The motherboard of this machine is a piece of sh*t (packard bell comp *-*). > 00_brnf_post_routing_paranoia.diff > 01_brnf_clean_up_protocol_checks.diff Your 01 diff is vs a file called br_netfilter.c2 > They remove some potentially unsafe assumptions from the code. If these > patches fix it, could you determine which of the two actually did the > trick? cheers, Bart _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/mailman/listinfo/bridge
