From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 8 14:40:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D59739 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:40:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B845929D for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:40:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r48Ee18l008659 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:40:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r48Ee1TT008658; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:40:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:40:01 GMT Message-Id: <201305081440.r48Ee1TT008658@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Nate Denning Subject: Re: kern/178116: [tcp] [panic] Kernel panic: general protection fault in tcp_do_segment X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Nate Denning List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 14:40:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/178116; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Nate Denning To: Gleb Smirnoff Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/178116: [tcp] [panic] Kernel panic: general protection fault in tcp_do_segment Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 08:30:01 -0600 On May 1, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Nate Denning wrote: >=20 > On May 1, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >=20 >> Nate, >>=20 >> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:26:04AM -0600, Nate Denning wrote: >> N> > do you run any additional network modules: ipfw, pf, netgraph, >> N> > accept filters, etc? How your system differes from a default >> N> > installation? >> N>=20 >> N> Yes, ipfilter, accf_http and accf_data (accf is for Apache). No = ipfw, pf, or netgraph. Output of kldstat: >>=20 >> I would suspect ipfilter. :( >>=20 >> Is it possible for you to rewrite your rules to ipfw or pf and try >> running with that? >>=20 >=20 > Certainly, I'll switch to pf and see how that goes. I switched to pf and I'm at about a week now with no panics where there = were typically several per day with ipfilter. I need this host to be = stable so I would like to stick to pf, but is there any more info, = configs, etc. I can provide to help debug the ipfilter issue? Thanks, Nate=