Re: kernel oops - do_ip_vs_get_ctl

To: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: kernel oops - do_ip_vs_get_ctl
Cc: Hans Schillstrom <hans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ryan O'Hara" <rohara@xxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx>
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:55:30 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Simon Horman wrote:

> Hi,
> sorry for not being a little more attentive to patches.
> I have now picked up all the patches that seem to have consensus.
> Those that seem critical I have pushed into ipvs with a CC: stable@
> and sent a pull request to Pablo to consider them for 3.4.
> There are two such patches and the head of the ipvs tree now looks like
> this:
> 0cc4789 ipvs: fix crash in ip_vs_control_net_cleanup on unload
> bd7dc1c netfilter: ipvs: Verify that IP_VS protocol has been registered
> Those that seemed less critical where the GFP_ATOMIC changes, one
> from Sasha and 6 from Julian. The head of the ipvs-next tree now looks like
> this:
> 663f4b2 netfilter: ipvs: use GFP_KERNEL allocation where possible
> b5cfd04 ipvs: SH scheduler does not need GFP_ATOMIC allocation
> 5b3b290 ipvs: LBLCR scheduler does not need GFP_ATOMIC allocation on init
> c087c6f ipvs: WRR scheduler does not need GFP_ATOMIC allocation
> 8cfaf8d ipvs: DH scheduler does not need GFP_ATOMIC allocation
> e7c6390 ipvs: LBLC scheduler does not need GFP_ATOMIC allocation on init
> 8f78609 ipvs: timeout tables do not need GFP_ATOMIC allocation
> Please let me know if there are any other patches you would like
> merged at this time.

        These two patches are also fixes but may be the 2nd
patch is too long for fix:

ipvs: reset ipvs pointer in netns
ipvs: fix app registration in netns

        If it looks too long for fix we can push some
simple check for net->ipvs in __ip_vs_ftp_init, so that
we do not oops when IPVS core is compiled in kernel.
Even if smaller version is sent to stable kernels,
I prefer "ipvs: fix app registration in netns" to be
applied at least for net-next. May be I should split
this 2nd patch as two-line fix + additional change
for net-next?

        Hans should provide similar two-line fixes for
LBLC and LBLCR. And one for latest crash report.


Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>