From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 7 08:01:56 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9F816A420 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:01:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: from blah.sun-fish.com (blah.sun-fish.com [217.18.249.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259BF13C4AA for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:01:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 4A2E51B10EF1; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:01:46 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on blah.cmotd.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from hater.haters.org (hater.cmotd.com [192.168.3.125]) by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C30D1B10EE9; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:01:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <473170E6.8020201@moneybookers.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:01:42 +0200 From: Stefan Lambrev User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Per olof Ljungmark References: <472B1E89.5080006@moneybookers.com> <47303578.8060703@moneybookers.com> <4730AA30.7090607@intersonic.se> In-Reply-To: <4730AA30.7090607@intersonic.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/4691/Wed Nov 7 06:39:41 2007 on blah.cmotd.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rtfree: 0xc741ee88 has 1 refs X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:01:56 -0000 Hi, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > Stefan Lambrev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Sorry to reply to myself, but I found that the problem exist only if >> the GW is carp interface, e.g. 10.1.1.1 sits on carp0 on default GW. >> I'm still testing how to reproduce this in my test lab and will fill >> a PR. >> >> Stefan Lambrev wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I see rtfree: 0xc741ee88 has 1 refs with freebsd releng_7 (i386) >>> from today. >>> >>> I think it's easy reproducible. What I have is: >>> >>> releng_7 (10.1.1.2) -> default GW (10.1.1.1) >>> on default GW I have route to 10.10.1.1/24 -> 10.1.1.3 >>> >>> so everytime when 10.1.1.2 try to contact someone from 10.10.1.1/24 >>> I see: >>> rtfree: 0xc741ee88 has 1 refs >>> >>> if I add direct route on 10.1.1.2 to 10.10.1.1/24 through 10.1.1.3 >>> the message will go away. >>> >>> Should I ignore this msg for now, or should I expect kernel panic >>> soon? :) > > Just FYI, I see this on a few boxes including the 7-BETA2 I'm writing > this on. None of them has a carp interface though. What I find > interesting here is that none of them are able to run a SMP kernel > without crashing (no panic, they're just frozen completely). > > Perhaps it is a coincidence, I don't know, but I am very interested in > your findings and have testbeds if you need. > > --per In the begging I thought this is very easy reproducible, but it isn't :) In my situation the IP of the default GW sits on carp interface (the host have nothing to do with carp) and when the host receive icmp redirect messages they actually are send from the IP of the netwrok card of the GW (not the IP that sits on carp0) then the host things that those icmp type 5 are spoofed and just ignore them and do not add shorter route. In this situation after reboot the hosts start to moan about rtfree, so I played with routes and settings, added manually routes and now when I restore everything to previous state I do not see anymore rtfree warnings. So may be once the route is created manually and then removed, wrong call of rtfree is not triggered anymore. I'll reboot the host latter to see if this easy reproducible at least on reboot, and if it is, I'll compile debug kernel and will run backtrace. The other thing that bother me is that icmp redirects are not send from the carpIP, but from the real interface's IP? Isn't this a bug, or it is normal behavior? -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177