From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 9 17:40:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBF216A4CA for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:40:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CAE43D49 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:40:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kA9HeS6m066625 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:40:28 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id kA9HeSH6066623; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:40:28 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:40:28 GMT Message-Id: <200611091740.kA9HeSH6066623@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Oliver Fromme Cc: Subject: Re: bin/105334: Error in output of tcpdump X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Oliver Fromme List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:40:29 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/105334; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Oliver Fromme To: rnsanchez@wait4.org (Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez) Cc: olli@secnetix.de (Oliver Fromme), FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/105334: Error in output of tcpdump Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:35:44 +0100 (CET) Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > While trying to debug a problem with NFS mounts via TCP, > > I used the following tcpdump(1) command to watch traffic > > on lo0. Note that some (but not all) of the port numbers > > are wrong: > > > > 127.0.0.1.2714894848 > 127.0.0.1.2049 > > 127.0.0.1.2049 > 127.0.0.1.3251765760 > > Not sure if it makes sense, but 2714894848 & 65535 == 1024. Any > chances that this port was indeed used during your capture (perhaps > cross-checking with netstat)? No, the actual port was 982, which seems to be completely unrelated to the numbers printed by tcpdump. I converted the "suspicios" numbers to hex: 2714894848 == 0xa1d20200 3251765760 == 0xc1d20200 652476928 == 0x26e40200 1054278144 == 0x3ed70200 98828800 == 0x05e40200 The only common patter is 0x0200 (decimal 1024) in the lower 16 bits. Could this be a subtle compiler bug? I've compiled the system without any special compiler settings. make.conf is empty. > In contrib/tcpdump/addrtoname.c:621:638 (-CURRENT): > [...] The source you quoted looks OK to me. I can't see anything that could explain the symptom. > Are you running i386 binary on an AMD64/EMT64 (or another > 64 bits variant)? It's all i386 32bit (both kernel + userland). I don't even know if the machine supports 64bit, it's a Xeon 3.2 GHz. The dmesg says "AMD Features=0x20000000", does that mean "long mode", i.e. 64bit? Anyway, I'm running 32bit, and going to 64bit is not an option. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "anyone new to programming should be kept as far from C++ as possible; actually showing the stuff should be considered a criminal offence" -- Jacek Generowicz