Steffen Moser wrote:
Hi Constantine,
* On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 04:57 AM (-0500), Constantine 'Gus' Fantanas wrote:
--I am using SuSE's 2.6.14. Thank you!!!!! Sooooooo, it seems I need to downgrade to a 2.6.13 kernel...
You can also try if this patch (against 2.6.14) helps:
--- a/net/core/datagram.c 2005-11-01 11:38:31.000000000 +0100 +++ b/net/core/datagram.c 2005-11-01 11:38:45.000000000 +0100 @@ -213,6 +213,10 @@ { int i, err, fraglen, end = 0; struct sk_buff *next = skb_shinfo(skb)->frag_list; + + if (!len) + return 0; + next_skb: fraglen = skb_headlen(skb); i = -1;
At least it fixed a problem with "traceroute" on 2.6.14 for me.
And this problem seems to be related to the "bind" problem I've told you about in my previous mail. So perhaps it may help for you, too (at least if your "bind" problem has the same origin like the one I wrote about).
--Thanks a lot, Steffen! I did not patch the 2.6.14 kernel; I returned to 2.6.13 and all my problems with bind and traceroute went away. Actually, I was unaware that the traceroute problem was caused by the kernel and thought my system had been hacked! I am lucky because I am running on a laptop (AMD64-based Presario 3240); I heard the fan and realized the processor was running "pedal to the metal," which I could not explain. 'ps auxw' and 'top' revealed FOUR simultaneous traceroute jobs; after killing them one by one, the processor returned to its coasting speed. Thanks to you, now I know.
Bye, Steffen