Re: 0010:virtnet_rq_alloc+0x8f/0x1b0 [virtio_net] with 6.10.7 and packed virtqueues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 06.11.24 10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:04:34PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 04:01:43 -0500, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 09:32:38AM +0200, Jaroslav Pulchart wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Jaroslav Pulchart wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1/ I was able to "do a reproducer" and hit the "random memory
>>>>>> corruption" issue with vanila 6.10.10 in our setup in ~28m of uptime
>>>>>> see attached 6.10.10-1.gdc.el9.x86_64.log.
>>>>>> 2/ I reverted these commits
>>>>>> "virtio_net: rx remove premapped failover code":
>>>>>> defd28aa5acb0fd7c15adc6bc40a8ac277d04dea
>>>>>> "virtio_net: big mode skip the unmap check":
>>>>>> a377ae542d8d0a20a3173da3bbba72e045bea7a9
>>>>>> "virtio_ring: enable premapped mode whatever use_dma_api":
>>>>>> f9dac92ba9081062a6477ee015bd3b8c5914efc4
>>>>>> in our next build and so far the environment is stable and not
>>>>>> crashing under same conditions like the previous crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Automated backport failed:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lore.kernel.org/all/2024091336-family-daffodil-541d@gregkh
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you have done the revert, and actually tested it, feel free
>>>>> to post, I will ack.
>>>>
>>>> What I did is:
>>>> git checkout linux-6.10.y
>>>> git revert defd28aa5acb0fd7c15adc6bc40a8ac277d04dea
>>>> git revert a377ae542d8d0a20a3173da3bbba72e045bea7a9
>>>> git revert f9dac92ba9081062a6477ee015bd3b8c5914efc4
>>>> (no changes nor fixing conflicts was needed)
>>>>
>>>> I'm newbie in posting the changes to upstream, Can you help me with
>>>> some simple steps on how to do it?
>>>
>>> Basically in this case, I think it is enough
>>> to reply to the revert patches and CC stable.
>>
>> Oh, I am ok.
>>
>> If need me to do something, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks.
> 
> yes, pls reply and CC stable ;)

I see that ";)", but it seems I'm missing something here:

Why did this thread resurface? 6.10.y is EOL since a while now, so that
reverting ship has sailed. And the commit in question is in 6.11 afaics.

Ciao, Thorsten




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux