From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 9 18:10:26 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 6D5BA16A585 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:10:26 +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 227D243D55 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:10:26 +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 kA9IAPed071578 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:10:25 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id kA9IAPUP071577; Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:10:25 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:10:25 GMT Message-Id: <200611091810.kA9IAPUP071577@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez 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: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:10:26 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/105334; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez To: Oliver Fromme Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/105334: Error in output of tcpdump Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:07:55 -0200 On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:35:44 +0100 (CET) Oliver Fromme wrote: > 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. It's possible, but I think this is the least expected cause. > > > 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. The printed number was a 16 bit integer cast to a 32 bit one, and it got mangled somehow. > > > 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. I'd recommend you to capture a tcpdump trace, if possible, with -w option. Something like: # tcpdump -c 100 -s 1600 -w oddport.dump To save 100 packets and probably some that triggers this issue. With this (small) dump we can debug tcpdump and see what's going wrong. Regards. :) ps: my previous message was classified as spam (and discarded), but I'm subscribed to the list. Odd, too. -- Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez Powered by FreeBSD "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse."