Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 502835
vcc_sock_destruct: wmem leakage (2160 bytes) detected.
Last modified: 2009-12-18 04:29:42 EST
Description of problem: I've noticed it after installing new hardware(mainboard) but it might have been there before. It's random problem, but I think there is a pattern - namely when adsl connection bandwidth usage goes up this leakage occurs and my connection goes down, cannot remove/reload speedtouch module, cannot if it up, only way to fix it is to reboot in error message number of bytes varies Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: I'm sorry I cannot give more details but I'd be happy to help so if you need me to do something, make it more verbose, get more feedback from the kernel or basically anything to debug it - let me know. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: installation updated to the last available rpms, I've marked - severity - as high because it is like this for my set-up
bit more info on the issue, tested hardware: when is failing: mobo - XFX mATX gForce 8300 + Athlon 7850 BE + mem Kingston KHX8500D2K2/4g (all four slots populated) when is OK - when as above but CPU used is replaced with X2 4850e or BE-2350 - no above error when is failing: mobo - Asus M3N78-EM (gforce) + the same as above CPU and memory when is OK - when as above but CPU used is replaced with X2... ---||--- ---||--- to me it seems like a hardware bug??? if so - question - is it nvidia or CPU ????? cheers
I'd guess there is some kind of race happening that only gets hit with the faster CPU. Google turns up this proposed patch which was never tested or applied: http://www.mail-archive.com/speedtouch@ml.free.fr/msg05443.html --- linux-2.6.0-test9/net/atm/pppoatm.c.orig 2004-01-23 21:39:01.000000000 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.0-test9/net/atm/pppoatm.c 2004-01-23 21:41:34.000000000 +0100 @@ -238,8 +238,12 @@ DPRINTK("(unit %d): atm_skb(%p)->vcc(%p)->dev(%p)\n", pvcc->chan.unit, skb, ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc, ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc->dev); - return ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc->send(ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc, skb) - ? DROP_PACKET : 1; + if (ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc->send(ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc, skb)) { + atomic_sub(skb->truesize, &ATM_SKB(skb)->vcc->sk->sk_wmem_alloc); + kfree_skb(skb); + return DROP_PACKET; + } + return 1; nospace: /* * We don't have space to send this SKB now, but we might have
oops, missed it and in the mean while sent CPU(fast one 7850be) back to the supplier, but if situation, this same or similar repeats in the future, I'll test this patch. thanks.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.