Le vendredi 29 juillet 2011 à 14:29 +0200, Michal Soltys a écrit : > On 11-07-15 00:14, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via > > the bugzilla web interface). > > > > > > Here: WARN_ON(next_time == 0); > > > > From the other thread on netfilter-devel: > > > On 11-07-22 11:58, Michal Pokrywka wrote: After bisecting 2.6.39.1 it > > turned out that the bug is caused independently by two patches: > > > > commit b262a5da755cc6ed0cb4fba230cd9bf4037e1096 sch_sfq: fix peek() > > implementation > > > > and > > > > commit 9df49f2bfe862573911a080c75a6d81113c5c81d sch_sfq: avoid giving > > spurious NET_XMIT_CN signals > > > > Reverting these patches makes HFSC work again. > > > > This one (upstream 8efa885406359af300d46910642b50ca82c0fe47) seems to be > the culprit (does reverting only that one cures the problem ?) > > It allows SFQ to return success on enqueuing, when the packet really > replaced some other packet in some other flow. This confuses outer qdisc > (in this particular case HFSC) which thinks new packet was actually > added each time such situation happes. >
Technically speaking, _this_ packet was successfuly enqueued. Returning NET_XMIT_CN or NET_XMIT_SUCCESS should not trigger a bug in caller. > This in turn causes additional dequeues and ends with attempt > to schedule non-existent packets, and triggers the warning. > Then its probably a bug in HFSC : It doesnt understand SFQ lost a packet. I'll take a look, thanks for the report. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1311946060.2843.15.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC
