From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244B2C47247 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 06:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (krantz.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81C7E206A5 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 06:54:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bajz8N7C" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 81C7E206A5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 9b216ecd; Tue, 5 May 2020 06:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oo1-xc35.google.com (mail-oo1-xc35.google.com [2607:f8b0:4864:20::c35]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id b23b3d50 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 06:41:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oo1-xc35.google.com with SMTP id p67so308550ooa.11 for ; Mon, 04 May 2020 23:54:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xNfg0RdcE5og5cdwLgyEszCiC1a3cEGKmbJaRhG+K70=; b=bajz8N7C3wKIbFQGZq+vQoJWUbxrPc7crH+yl4OgCy+vtucGGgBBjKd4DtXA+kL4sb rKPcwtyuJKhadjseGZI6G0wOr/qAv1P9Ej7Mp05U413e/cJdJG4OizeJugCQjyJ86IOn xwbHTDPIGgrsni1a8m1D9wGSWxq/fW2PG85Zws7vb+MnRPlYMo26yHteKrOai1cEYO4w 7O8ZwOitRwx4lieMpSNkG3FHFPGG2WfksghJDtQ+cy08x6Y4iRQlC1XdDKQC8xSzWNeu 6HWOxcciVEsL93Iij6TZnJ/w5CaBB3nF2f8KBBBzoSwPALs2G1J/vy1zdhqHUG+ASD+l p9tA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xNfg0RdcE5og5cdwLgyEszCiC1a3cEGKmbJaRhG+K70=; b=dS3PNPo44tsmYZ4GesfcpcsGF39T7IbQGBwHVa0oqETqHcSy5TbmmbYX2dxfwzRe4C bY5R+Zw4iuh3p9NNzF0aaixyvDKY+XdjEDsPSF0wa1f5UGBALLt4KifuIs6jVYLyIcvE +4w9Ae+qT73FG+UQLJopfmvEBvGFb8ybpeQVRW+qBOTi045Tx2QKeEqFUO3sGA4AZodt DPgsEOA32yP74mrdH4D/rbt/RXy/o9aYGuVPB20uw/mOnKqd1/1K4n5/VH2fiovgF/wB rjccCh3CvsJVGJl5ZMlKcqSQD7H3gyft7ZBQdkPpQMPSpbhc+ITXs+kHLjE2iwKPxuGM v4hQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZcyCCS1mU5A82tkJY87TP3NMczxkwaLnJldxVS5I/QJXeXwcJC IvFbJIeuM0sU2FxJ7vXi0BNXb0tfxU1ord1bkFxs1v5Q X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypL2nSS3/XzR07mZRyAFqKUbt20TAiQe8vaxsl7OHomOtbgdLhzTLDstNUZpKYsIVcs4I9hiVeG6gzFEBun+jPw= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:d44a:: with SMTP id p10mr1724999oos.11.1588661662992; Mon, 04 May 2020 23:54:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Wang Jian Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 14:54:10 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: soft lockup - may be related to wireguard (backported) To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: WireGuard mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" Jason A. Donenfeld =E4=BA=8E2020=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=885=E6= =97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=BA=8C =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=886:28=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > Can you send full networking configuration in enough detail that I'll be > able to reliably reproduce this problem? If I can't reproduce it, it's > unlikely I'll be able to fix it. I will send full networking configuration to you privately. The configuration works and the problem occured only once. > > Meanwhile, it really really looks from your stacktrace that you have one > wireguard interface going over another wireguard interface: > > [27929.506367] wg_packet_send_staged_packets+0x320/0x5d0 [wireguard] > [27929.506426] wg_xmit+0x324/0x490 [wireguard] > [27929.506469] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x8d/0x1e0 > [27929.506508] __dev_queue_xmit+0x721/0x8e0 > [27929.506549] ip_finish_output2+0x19b/0x590 > [27929.506604] ? nf_confirm+0xcb/0xf0 [nf_conntrack] > [27929.506648] ip_output+0x76/0xf0 > [27929.506681] ? __ip_finish_output+0x1c0/0x1c0 > [27929.506720] iptunnel_xmit+0x174/0x210 > [27929.506761] send4+0x120/0x390 [wireguard] > [27929.506806] wg_socket_send_skb_to_peer+0x98/0xb0 [wireguard] > [27929.506860] wg_packet_tx_worker+0xa9/0x210 [wireguard] > > Here, a wireguard encrypted udp packet is being sent to an endpoint that > then is being routed to a wireguard interface. What in your network > config would make that possible? Maybe some erroneous ip route/rule magic that I don't notice.