John Bäckstrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Someone asked if I could try to trigger this assertion again, and I'm > afraid I probably cannot, I didnt do anything special at the time. But > I've got something even better for you all, got a BUG from something > tcp-related. Mind you, I am trying to find a possibly hardware-related > issue here, so if this bug does not make any sense it might be my hardware! > > I would actually want to know it if this is likely hardware-related or > not, since I have no idea if its RAM, CPU, motherboard or "only" a disk > that is broken. I know _something_ is broken, due to lockups, and seeing > a faulty disk indicated in a HDD diag, but only once, the disk is > apparently fine 99% of the time. > > --- > John Bäckstrand > > > [148475.651000] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [148475.651050] kernel BUG at net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:918!
I think we've seen a couple of reports of this. > [148475.651078] invalid operand: 0000 [#1] > [148475.651103] Modules linked in: sha256 aes_i586 dm_crypt ipt_state > ipt_multiport ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_filter netconsole md5 ipv6 > af_packet pdc202xx_new e1000 8139cp de2104x i2c_viapro via686a > i2c_sensor i2c_core uhci_hcd usbcore 3c59x 8139too mii de4x5 crc32 > parport_pc parport reiserfs dm_mod ip_nat_ftp iptable_nat ip_tables > ip_conntrack_ftp ip_conntrack rtc unix > [148475.651378] CPU: 0 > [148475.651380] EIP: 0060:[<c0286619>] Not tainted VLI > [148475.651383] EFLAGS: 00010287 (2.6.13-rc5sand4) Can you tell us exactly which kernel this is based on? If it's 2.6.13-rc5 then it would be better to be testing 2.6.13-rc5-git<latest>, because some net fixes have been recently merged. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
