|
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 07:37:10PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>
> > I played around with your patch and tested xt_TEE. I added a TEE rule to
> > mangle/OUTPUT and pinged. This happend, I have not yet analyzed it:
> >
> > [ 101.126649] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 101.128436] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at
> > fffffffb8a2fda88
> > [ 101.129421] IP: [<ffffffff810c9737>] cpuacct_charge+0x97/0x200
> > [ 101.129421] PGD 1c0f067 PUD 0
> > [ 101.129421] Thread overran stack, or stack corrupted
>
> Problem with process stack? May be some packet loop
> happens? Because I can not reproduce such problem in my
> virtual setup, I tested TEE too, with careful packet
> matching and 1 CPU. Should I assume that you don't have such
> oops when the patch is not applied, with the same TEE rule?
Oh, sorry, you are right. It happens with an unpatched net-next kernel, too.
I inserted the TEE rule in mangel/OUTGOING and had only one route, ip -6 r a
default via fe80::1 dev eth0 which at the time of the panic was actually not
reachable.
> > [ 101.129421] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
>
> You don't appear to have PREEMPT in above line.
> I'm not sure when preemption is enabled if tee_tg6() does
> not have a problem with its anti-loop measures (tee_active).
> Is preemption possible in OUTPUT hook, i.e. can we change
> the CPU while playing with tee_active and as result change
> different flag?
Hm, maybe. I don't have too much insight into netfilter stack and
what are the differences between OUTPUT and FORWARD path but plan to
investigate. ;)
Anyways just wanted to let you know that unpatched kernels are affected, too.
Will have a closer look later.
Greetings,
Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
