l.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [5.10] i40e/udp_tunnel: RTNL: assertion failed
at net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_nic.c
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 18:08:31 +0100 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Yup! I'm pretty sure it's my conversion. The full commit quote upstream:
>
> 40a9
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 18:08:31 +0100 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Yup! I'm pretty sure it's my conversion. The full commit quote upstream:
>
> 40a98cb6f01f ("i40e: convert to new udp_tunnel infrastructure")
>
> It should trigger if you have vxlan module loaded (or built in)
> and then reload or re-probe
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:05:40 + Pierre Cheynier wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:25:12 +0100 Pierre Cheynier wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:23:54 +0100 Sokolowski, Jan wrote:
> >
> > > It has been mentioned that the error only appeared recently, after
> > > upgrade to 5.10.X. What's the last
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 16:25:12 +0100 Pierre Cheynier wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:23:54 +0100 Sokolowski, Jan wrote:
>
> > It has been mentioned that the error only appeared recently, after upgrade
> > to 5.10.X. What's the last known working configuration it was tested on? A
> > bisection could
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:23:54 +0100 Sokolowski, Jan wrote:
> It has been mentioned that the error only appeared recently, after upgrade to
> 5.10.X. What's the last known working configuration it was tested on? A
> bisection could help us investigate.
I unfortunately moved from one LTS to anothe
ruary 2, 2021 5:31 PM
To: Pierre Cheynier
Cc: intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [5.10] i40e/udp_tunnel: RTNL: assertion failed
at net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_nic.c
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:59:56 + Pierre Cheynier wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 04:27:
On Tue, 2021-02-02 at 08:30 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:59:56 + Pierre Cheynier wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 04:27:00 +0100 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > > I must have missed that i40e_setup_pf_switch() is called from the
> > > probe
> > > path.
> >
> > Do you wan
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:59:56 + Pierre Cheynier wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 04:27:00 +0100 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> > I must have missed that i40e_setup_pf_switch() is called from the probe
> > path.
>
> Do you want me to apply these patches, rebuild and tell you what's the
> outcome?
I wa
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 04:27:00 +0100 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> I must have missed that i40e_setup_pf_switch() is called from the probe
> path.
Do you want me to apply these patches, rebuild and tell you what's the
outcome?
--
Pierre
ou the information required to guess my hardware context
> (i40e).
>
> [8.842462] [ cut here ]--------
> [8.847081] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_nic.c (557)
> [8.853541] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 15 at net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_nic.c:557
>
] [ cut here ]
[8.847081] RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_nic.c (557)
[8.853541] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 15 at net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_nic.c:557
__udp_tunnel_nic_reset_ntf+0xde/0xf0 [udp_tunnel]
[8.864226] Modules linked in: vxlan ip6_udp_tunnel udp_tunnel sg mlx4_en
Florian:
Booting top of tree on my host with a VRF configured is spewing traces:
[ 24.779911] RTNL: assertion failed at
/home/dsa/kernel.git/net/core/dev.c (5717)
[ 24.779984] CPU: 3 PID: 989 Comm: ip Not tainted
4.13.0-rc4-01020-gcd9cb3890b20 #8
[ 24.779986] Hardware name: Supermicro
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:42:52 +
> From: "bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org"
>
> To: "shemmin...@linux-foundation.org"
> Subject: [Bug 1067
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:42:52 +
From: "bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org"
To: "shemmin...@linux-foundation.org"
Subject: [Bug 106711] VXLAN: RTNL assertion failed at
net/core/net_namespace.c:187
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:05:08 +
From: "bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org"
To: "shemmin...@linux-foundation.org"
Subject: [Bug 106711] New: VXLAN: RTNL assertion failed at
net/core/net_namespace.c:187
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/sh
Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:57:25PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 08:53:39PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wro
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 06:57:25PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 08:53:39PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +010
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 08:53:39PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 20
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 08:53:39PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +010
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PR
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:17:35PM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> Not all of them in the bonding code, but all two of them in the small patch.
OK, we need to change all of the ones that may be called from
process context with BH on.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email:
On Dec 15, 2007 9:27 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with you completely, Herbet, which is why I was surprised that
> > my first apparently did not resolve the issue. I felt it should
> > have
>
> Did it change all occurren
Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree with you completely, Herbet, which is why I was surprised that
> my first apparently did not resolve the issue. I felt it should
> have
Did it change all occurrences of read_lock(&bond->lock) to
read_lock_bh? If so I better look at the lo
On Dec 14, 2007 11:10 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:47:22PM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> >
> > I'm guessing if we go back to using a write-lock for bond->lock this
> > will go back to working again, but I'm not totally convinced since there
> > are plenty
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:47:22PM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> I'm guessing if we go back to using a write-lock for bond->lock this
> will go back to working again, but I'm not totally convinced since there
> are plenty of places where we used a read-lock with it.
Sorry I forgot to cc you ea
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >>
> >>>Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:11:15PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +010
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PR
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:57:42PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> >>
> >>>Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>
> >Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>diff -puN drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
> >>>drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >>>--- a/drivers/net/bondi
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
diff -puN drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
+++ a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
@@ -,8 +,6
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:46:55AM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> diff -puN drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
> >> drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
> >> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
> >> +++ a/drivers/net/
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> diff -puN drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~bonding-locking-fix
>> +++ a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>> @@ -,8 +,6 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Remove stray rtnl_unlock().
>
> Addresses http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9542
Adnrew, please cc Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on bonding
issues.
> diff -puN drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c~
; >> [<78133c8b>] run_workqueue+0x87/0x1b6
> >> [<783ac6d7>] linkwatch_event+0x0/0x22
> >> [<781346ff>] worker_thread+0x0/0x85
> >> [<78134778>] worker_thread+0x79/0x85
> >> [<781371ad>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x35
&
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:20:48 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9543
Summary: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c
(2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:20:48 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9543
>
>Summary: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c
> (2164)/RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv4/devinet.c
>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Vendor module calls kernel api incorrectly. dev_set_promiscuity requires
that the calling thread hold rtnl mutex (ie call rtnl_lock). It's their bug,
netdev doesn't want to hear about it.
OK, that's all I needed to know. Thank you both for your comme
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 18:05 +0200, Christian Kujau wrote:
> but given the amount of changes currently
> going into net/ I thought this might be interesting:
>
> [15604.137408] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (2595)
> [15604.138807] [] __dev_set_promiscuity+0xc2/0xd0
into net/ I thought this might be interesting:
>
> [15604.137408] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (2595)
> [15604.137772] [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
> [15604.138121] [] show_trace+0x12/0x20
> [15604.138449] [] dump_stack+0x15/0x20
> [15604.138807]
vmware), I just
wanted to let you netdev guys know, because the only occurences I found
on the net were from 1999, but given the amount of changes currently
going into net/ I thought this might be interesting:
[15604.137408] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (2595)
[15604.137772
41 matches
Mail list logo
