Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757098Ab1EXP4Q (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 24 May 2011 11:56:16 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53519 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754356Ab1EXP4N (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 24 May 2011 11:56:13 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:56:09 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Justin Mattock <justinmattock@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage.
Message-ID: <20110524155608.GA17977@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	Justin Mattock <justinmattock@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
References: <4DDB491A.2070901@gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinC=2wxtYD4YmePgOfoLSh9STD6Sw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinC=2wxtYD4YmePgOfoLSh9STD6Sw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2606
Lines: 49

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:50:46PM -0700, Justin Mattock wrote:
 
 > [ 2862.310349] WARNING: at net/ipv4/route.c:1668 ip_rt_bug+0x5c/0x62()

Awesome, adding that WARN_ON paid off. This is the same bug I've been trying
to reproduce the last few weeks. DaveM mentioned that it means we used
an input route for packet output.

 > [ 2862.310414] Pid: 6153, comm: gcm-session Not tainted
 > 2.6.39-04906-g5e152b4-dirty #2
 > [ 2862.310417] Call Trace:
 > [ 2862.310424]  [<ffffffff8104c634>] warn_slowpath_common+0x83/0x9b
 > [ 2862.310430]  [<ffffffff8104c666>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x1c
 > [ 2862.310434]  [<ffffffff814095c9>] ip_rt_bug+0x5c/0x62
 > [ 2862.310439]  [<ffffffff814112a1>] dst_output+0x19/0x1d
 > [ 2862.310443]  [<ffffffff81412aa0>] ip_local_out+0x20/0x25
 > [ 2862.310448]  [<ffffffff814139c9>] ip_send_skb+0x19/0x58
 > [ 2862.310453]  [<ffffffff8142fa4e>] udp_send_skb+0x239/0x29b
 > [ 2862.310458]  [<ffffffff814310f0>] udp_sendmsg+0x5a1/0x7d4
 > [ 2862.310464]  [<ffffffff81079408>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
 > [ 2862.310469]  [<ffffffff8141139c>] ? ip_select_ident+0x3d/0x3d
 > [ 2862.310475]  [<ffffffff810525b8>] ? local_bh_enable_ip+0xe/0x10
 > [ 2862.310481]  [<ffffffff8148f131>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_bh+0x31/0x35
 > [ 2862.310486]  [<ffffffff813d41a6>] ? release_sock+0x14c/0x155
 > [ 2862.310490]  [<ffffffff814386ac>] inet_sendmsg+0x66/0x6f
 > [ 2862.310495]  [<ffffffff813d02b0>] sock_sendmsg+0xe6/0x109
 > [ 2862.310501]  [<ffffffff8107d63f>] ? lock_acquire+0xe1/0x109
 > [ 2862.310505]  [<ffffffff8107d535>] ? lock_release+0x1aa/0x1d3
 > [ 2862.310512]  [<ffffffff810ed549>] ? might_fault+0xa5/0xac
 > [ 2862.310516]  [<ffffffff813ceb34>] ? copy_from_user+0x2f/0x31
 > [ 2862.310521]  [<ffffffff813d1f34>] sys_sendto+0x132/0x174
 > [ 2862.310526]  [<ffffffff81495cfa>] ? sysret_check+0x2e/0x69
 > [ 2862.310531]  [<ffffffff8107b016>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x13f/0x172
 > [ 2862.310537]  [<ffffffff8109fd4d>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x11c/0x148
 > [ 2862.310542]  [<ffffffff8121debe>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
 > [ 2862.310546]  [<ffffffff81495cc2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
 > [ 2862.310549] ---[ end trace 2d2332adaa8bf2b5 ]---
 > [ 2863.373889] ip_rt_bug: 10.0.0.10 -> 255.255.255.255, ?
 
The common thing between your bug and the trace I triggered was the
destination ip reported. A clue maybe ?

	Dave

--
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/