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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,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 4914FC3A5A9 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:29:08 +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 9890D206A5 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:29:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b="A3ur87cP" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9890D206A5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zx2c4.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 8d7e27f7; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:16:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.zx2c4.com (mail.zx2c4.com [192.95.5.64]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 5ad12934 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3044c843; Mon, 4 May 2020 22:16:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; h=subject:to :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mail; bh=MkbAd/ZZKldI Q4HrXhDeCeGkLF8=; b=A3ur87cPJUiR9GRuxBwGyR6JGn9rNl3eo2a/CNWQumCp 0d+mzNlVUB1Afdwvvc0tx4Y3DfoHgpOk7rd4GQqCr07m1pj8SWrCLSNraTM3F3qe /2VVE0p9uM3uzhW3hrymNVMMuVj7RL5YBf/fVfXSEZTVBBpoitMTaiVSPKotY9Or RWBkBwBe0nafguyfkkql5U0guND87cgytS97ZxETvBIwIjG7EDBPFsTSAtUGJj8m 2TqOvpRMJMQLwYqf6G/FOyT3nLXa7WMTSKZmB0Vo2LG02FAP0uHRVfod+y7RjEMb egj18p2NO3jtZjU4LXL/LmH5m1IxW8Nf9uVJ+fdDVQ== Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id 9cca45b2 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Mon, 4 May 2020 22:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: soft lockup - may be related to wireguard (backported) To: Wang Jian , WireGuard mailing list References: From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:28:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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" On 5/4/20 6:49 AM, Wang Jian wrote: > Jason A. Donenfeld 于2020年5月4日周一 下午1:26写道： >> >> Are you routing wireguard over wireguard, or something interesting like that? >> >> Is ipsec being used? > > I don't think I have any fancy use cases. But wireguard over pppoe? > > Other details are > - nftable's iptables compatible mode is used, along with ipset > - pppoe link is default route, and wg-quick is configured to install > additional default route into new created routing table (2000) > - ipset matches are used to MARK traffic to specific destinations in > mangle table, PREROUTING & OUTPUT, for both v4 and v6 > - ip rules are added to match the fwmark and lookup new routing table > (2000, so go out via wireguard interface) for forwarded traffic and > output traffic 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. 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? Jason