Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3 - Kernel

This is a discussion on Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3 - Kernel ; tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip (-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know. I'll check current ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3

  1. Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3

    tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
    fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
    (-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
    I'll check current tip on the weekend when I'll have the luxury to
    have my main system down long enough for a test. Right now I'm kinda
    up against a deadline, but didn't want to leave it unreported. Should
    be easy for someone else to confirm or deny whether current tip has
    the problem.

    Ray
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  2. Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3

    On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
    > tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
    > fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
    > (-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
    > I'll check current tip on the weekend when I'll have the luxury to
    > have my main system down long enough for a test. Right now I'm kinda
    > up against a deadline, but didn't want to leave it unreported. Should
    > be easy for someone else to confirm or deny whether current tip has
    > the problem.


    FYI, I have created a bugzilla entry for this issue at:
    http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9568

    Thanks,
    Rafael
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  3. Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3

    Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
    >> tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
    >> fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
    >> (-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
    >> I'll check current tip on the weekend when I'll have the luxury to
    >> have my main system down long enough for a test. Right now I'm kinda
    >> up against a deadline, but didn't want to leave it unreported. Should
    >> be easy for someone else to confirm or deny whether current tip has
    >> the problem.

    >
    > FYI, I have created a bugzilla entry for this issue at:
    > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9568


    Hmm what do you mean by empty ? it does not capturing anything on that interface ?

    I do run -rc5-git with wireshark-0.99.6 and tshark -i eth0 or lo works here.

    snip

    ....

    -- sudo tshark -i eth0

    Capturing on eth0
    1197685732.785920 192.168.0.1 -> 239.255.255.250 SSDP NOTIFY * HTTP/1.1
    1197685732.790126 192.168.0.1 -> 239.255.255.250 SSDP NOTIFY * HTTP/1.1
    1197685732.793613 192.168.0.1 -> 239.255.255.250 SSDP NOTIFY * HTTP/1.1
    1197685732.797656 192.168.0.1 -> 239.255.255.250 SSDP NOTIFY * HTTP/1.1
    ....

    1197685738.680962 77.37.20.73 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 44544 > 44625 [PSH, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=20 Win=88 Len=27 TSV=914082460 TSER=145333592
    1197685738.681007 192.168.0.2 -> 77.37.20.73 TCP 44625 > 44544 [ACK] Seq=20 Ack=27 Win=1002 Len=0 TSV=145333645 TSER=914082460
    1197685745.994576 192.168.0.2 -> 81.169.185.129 NTP NTP client
    1197685746.058523 81.169.185.129 -> 192.168.0.2 NTP NTP server
    1197685749.058576 192.168.0.2 -> 85.214.68.60 NTP NTP client
    1197685749.121771 85.214.68.60 -> 192.168.0.2 NTP NTP server
    1197685751.391157 77.37.20.73 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 44544 > 44625 [PSH, ACK] Seq=27 Ack=20 Win=88 Len=55 TSV=914085637 TSER=145333645
    1197685751.391201 192.168.0.2 -> 77.37.20.73 TCP 44625 > 44544 [ACK] Seq=20 Ack=82 Win=1002 Len=0 TSV=145346355 TSER=914085637

    .....

    -- sudo tshark -i lo

    Capturing on lo
    1197686288.330222 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 53122 > http [SYN] Seq=0 Len=0 MSS=16396 TSV=145883294 TSER=0 WS=6
    1197686288.330225 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP http > 53122 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=32768 Len=0 MSS=16396 TSV=145883294 TSER=145883294 WS=6
    1197686288.330251 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 53122 > http [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=32832 Len=0 TSV=145883294 TSER=145883294
    1197686288.330327 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 HTTP GET /.KDE/kdegames-3.97.1_747147.tar.bz2 HTTP/1.0
    1197686288.330357 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP http > 53122 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=132 Win=33856 Len=0 TSV=145883294 TSER=145883294
    1197686288.474624 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 HTTP HTTP/1.1 200 OK (application/x-bzip2)
    1197686288.474684 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.2 TCP 53122 > http [ACK] Seq=132 Ack=16385 Win=49344 Len=0 TSV=145883439 TSER=145883439

    .....

    snip


    Regards,

    Gabriel
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  4. Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3

    On Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
    > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Ray Lee wrote:
    > >> tshark -i eth0, eth1, lo are all empty. Works under 2.6.23.0 just
    > >> fine. A quick scan of the log between 2.6.24-rc3 and current tip
    > >> (-rc5) doesn't show any obvious fixes, but then again, what do I know.
    > >> I'll check current tip on the weekend when I'll have the luxury to
    > >> have my main system down long enough for a test. Right now I'm kinda
    > >> up against a deadline, but didn't want to leave it unreported. Should
    > >> be easy for someone else to confirm or deny whether current tip has
    > >> the problem.

    > >
    > > FYI, I have created a bugzilla entry for this issue at:
    > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9568

    >
    > Hmm what do you mean by empty ? it does not capturing anything on that interface ?


    Correct, absolutely no traffic. So if it works for you, then either
    it's something that got fixed between -rc3 and -rc5, or something odd
    when I did a make oldconfig, I suppose. (Or because I'm on an x86-64
    kernel?) Regardless, -rc5 is currently building, and I'll try it in
    the morning.

    > I do run -rc5-git with wireshark-0.99.6 and tshark -i eth0 or lo works here.


    Excellent. Thank you for checking!

    Rafael: I'll update the bugzilla as warranted after testing.

    Ray
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  5. Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3

    On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, Ray Lee wrote:
    > On Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
    > Correct, absolutely no traffic. So if it works for you, then either
    > it's something that got fixed between -rc3 and -rc5, or something odd
    > when I did a make oldconfig, I suppose. (Or because I'm on an x86-64
    > kernel?) Regardless, -rc5 is currently building, and I'll try it in
    > the morning.


    -rc5 works great. Really don't know what's different between my -rc3
    and -rc5 builds. The diff of .config between the two doesn't show
    anything obvious, so perhaps it was something fixed in the interim.

    I've gone ahead and closed the bugzilla entry, btw. Thanks, and sorry
    for the false (or tardy) alarm.

    Ray
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  6. Re: Regression: Wireshark sees no packets in 2.6.24-rc3


    On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 00:16 -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
    > On Dec 14, 2007 11:09 PM, Ray Lee wrote:
    > > On Dec 14, 2007 6:41 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
    > > Correct, absolutely no traffic. So if it works for you, then either
    > > it's something that got fixed between -rc3 and -rc5, or something odd
    > > when I did a make oldconfig, I suppose. (Or because I'm on an x86-64
    > > kernel?) Regardless, -rc5 is currently building, and I'll try it in
    > > the morning.

    >
    > -rc5 works great. Really don't know what's different between my -rc3
    > and -rc5 builds.


    I have an -rc3+wireless bits which also works great wrt.
    tcpdump/wireshark.

    johannes

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook)

    iQIVAwUAR2Qxv6Vg1VMiehFYAQJWbRAAvMVpeMgB5yCHRif90u 4ZbYZVEz0OSD4M
    KL4gWqQi0M3hk+Ng4j7YyztZCm3u60Vt2H53cHds4RoVehBufC mOTYB9YKYuM1ti
    TqlbU/Be9Uo7HWdV2rapYSPyofJ/pBA+bZR6tApcAWCOBdJ1rUcmiiiTmVlBvKHr
    YbEu6tgVUNmDXmCY2u7gkrJvvpreQw0z7Xxq3iIjXVNZTOH2EU Zo4/keYaAVNnfh
    4hrroJQ/cIjTgUbsZKkmmlTtnUxwVGacgIuAToBTZvzAFu4gc2TZSQKlc/Z7/mf5
    JLQhIFib/P+pr4sSc4jsFGqu+21i4eWBXDiAGtXaNwwbAVg6VvuFaJ+HNhe 6Vtdj
    VQi5bCv2fHQdJHbf1GHHu3O9LKm6XE3CmFwXZ2GqgsvFMt74nf C3bAK2TdHAp59A
    1//UxYh7g91ESXmqnqEjd5rXibAecGrr2xsZ5f1qWjPcizqEYFU5o qgm9ha6knhc
    l4a52hvZfvu9AotKseS8xJCxGEDkk0Jh4yABLucJRmkHAiJHxE Ox8GCrLX+gdSmL
    7d6Fptjz/TwduAqtF+4gwDq1064TYWbpA758TCCLl1OLELwKoFImg9BwDGW PkpBs
    wKSvSSlDZHe+9mGJiNyybwE4h4oDA+CDWQfLV7T7BvTuY0y79C 5LZgNJmhBuUQXj
    5Zoq560o/Yc=
    =vGeI
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


+ Reply to Thread