Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756062AbZFTPrp (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:47:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754019AbZFTPre (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:47:34 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:41586 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753567AbZFTPrd (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:47:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:47:16 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Patrick McHardy Cc: Eric Dumazet , David Miller , Thomas Gleixner , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [bug] __nf_ct_refresh_acct(): WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:30 __list_add+0x7d/0xad() Message-ID: <20090620154716.GA12901@elte.hu> References: <20090616.034752.226811527.davem@davemloft.net> <20090616105304.GA3579@elte.hu> <20090616122415.GA16630@elte.hu> <20090617092152.GA17449@elte.hu> <4A38C2F3.3000009@gmail.com> <20090617110803.GA10175@elte.hu> <20090618052356.GA18722@elte.hu> <4A39D778.9020607@cosmosbay.com> <4A3A0D45.8090806@trash.net> <4A3A5599.4080906@trash.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A3A5599.4080906@trash.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1246 Lines: 32 * Patrick McHardy wrote: > Ingo, could you please try whether this patch (combined with the > last one) makes any difference? Enabling CONFIG_NETFILTER_DEBUG > could also help. Mind pushing it upstream, and i'll keep things monitored over the week following when it hits upstream? The reason is, the crash ratio is worse than 1:1000, it took a day and a 1000 tests to trigger that one. I havent seen it after that. So it's going to be a very slow observation and you shouldnt serialize on me - giving you a 'it works' positive result will take 10,000 random bootp tests or so - that's a week or longer. (it can take a long time to hit that especially in the merge window when there's a lot of various test failures that cause hickups in the test stream.) ( Mailing me an upstream sha1 when all fixes in this area have hit upstream would certainly be welcome - i can use that as a 'no crashes expected in that area from that point on' flag day. ) Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/