Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Use destination address determined by IPVS

To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Use destination address determined by IPVS
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark Brooks <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Oester <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:37:10 +0300 (EEST)

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?

> [  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?


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>