Re: 3.12.33 - BUG xfrm_selector_match+0x25/0x2f6

To: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>, Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian Wiessner <f.wiessner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 3.12.33 - BUG xfrm_selector_match+0x25/0x2f6
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:56:56 +0100
On 12/13/2014, 09:19 PM, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>       Hello,
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014, Smart Weblications GmbH - Florian Wiessner wrote:
>>>> [  512.485323] CPU: 4 PID: 28142 Comm: vsftpd Not tainted 3.12.33 #5
>>>     Above "#5" is same as previous oops. It means kernel
>>> is not updated. Or you updated only the IPVS modules after
>>> applying the both patches?
>> I did it with make-kpkg --initrd linux_image which only rebuilt the modules,
>> correct. I can retry with make clean before building the package
>       I just tested PASV and PORT with 3.12.33 including
> both patches (seq adj fix + ip_route_me_harder fix) and do not
> see any crashes in nf_ct_seqadj_set. If you still have problem
> with FTP send me more info offlist.
>>>     You can also try without FTP tests to see if there
>>> are oopses in xfrm, so that we can close this topic and then
>>> to continue for the FTP problem on IPVS lists without
>>> bothering non-IPVS people.
>> yeah, it seems that the xfrm issue is away.
>       Thanks for the confirmation!

Great! Thanks for tracking it down.

So what should be done to fix the issue in stable 3.12? Are those
patches needed in the upstream kernel too? In that case I suppose it
will propagate to me through upstream. Otherwise, could you send "3.12
only" patches to stable@ so that I can apply them?

suse labs
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>