|
Hello,
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Xiaotian Feng wrote:
> >
> >> We met a kernel panic in 2.6.32.43 kernel:
> >>
> >> [2680191.848044] IPVS: ip_vs_conn_hash(): request for already hashed,
> >> called from run_timer_softirq+0x175/0x1d0
> >> <snip>
> >> [2680311.849009] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP
What we see here is 120 seconds between 2680191 and
2680311. It can mean 2 things:
- some state timeout, it depends on your forwarding method.
What is it? NAT? DR?
- 60 seconds for ip_vs_conn_expire retries
> >> After code review, the only chance that kernel change connection flag
> >> without protection is
> >> in ip_vs_ftp_init_conn().
> >
> > Hm, ip_vs_ftp_init_conn is called before 1st hashing,
> > from ip_vs_bind_app() in ip_vs_conn_new() before
> > ip_vs_conn_hash(). It should be another problem with
> > the flags. How different is IPVS in 2.6.32.43 compared to
> > recent kernels? If commit aea9d711 is present, I'm not
> > aware of other similar problems.
>
> ip_vs_bind_app() is also called by ip_vs_try_bind_dest(), which can be
> traced to ip_vs_proc_conn().
> I've checked the changes in upstream, but nothing helps since aea9d711
> has been taken into 2.6.32.28 kernel.
OK, this fix should make it safe for master-backup
sync and it should be applied but I suspect you are not
using sync, right? And then this fix will not solve the oops.
There are no many places that rehash conn:
ip_vs_conn_fill_cport
- used for FTP
ip_vs_check_template:
- do you have persistence configured?
After you provide details for the used forwarding
method, persistence and sync we should think how such races
with rehashing can lead to double hlist_del. May be
you can modify the debug message in ip_vs_conn_hash, so
that we can see cp->flags and ntohs of cp->cport, cp->dport
and cp->vport when oops happens again.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|
