Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:13:15 -0400 | From | Joseph Murawski <> | Subject | Re: Sparc64 U60: no iptables |
| |
Hello -
I would like to confirm this problem and reverting the patch provided does fix the problem!
I have an ultra 60, dual processor. gentoo linux gentoo-sources 2.6.13-gentoo-r2
Whenever i would enable the iptables modules (ip_tables) (ip_conntrack), execute the two commands iptables -X iptables -F and Ping any address ( including the loopback address) i would get an oops.
I would just like to throw out my encounter with the problem and confirm that the reversion of the below patch, fixes the problem and i am able to use iptables with an smp kernel.
if i am commiting a mailing list no no by posting this please let me know, but i thought it would be helpful to confirm this event.
Also is there a bugzilla type system for the linux kernel?
Thank you all for all your work!
any questions please let me know, i am also willing to report a bug report if there is such a system in place.
--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c 2005-03-17 17:35:05 -08:00 +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c 2005-03-17 17:35:05 -08:00 @@ -923,7 +923,7 @@ }
/* And one copy for every other CPU */ - for (i = 1; i < NR_CPUS; i++) { + for (i = 1; i < num_possible_cpus(); i++) { memcpy(newinfo->entries + SMP_ALIGN(newinfo->size)*i, newinfo->entries, SMP_ALIGN(newinfo->size)); @@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ struct ipt_entry *table_base; unsigned int i;
- for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++) { + for (i = 0; i < num_possible_cpus(); i++) { table_base = (void *)newinfo->entries + TABLE_OFFSET(newinfo, i); @@ -992,7 +992,7 @@ unsigned int cpu; unsigned int i;
- for (cpu = 0; cpu < NR_CPUS; cpu++) { + for (cpu = 0; cpu < num_possible_cpus(); cpu++) { i = 0; IPT_ENTRY_ITERATE(t->entries + TABLE_OFFSET(t, cpu), t->size, @@ -1130,7 +1130,7 @@ return -ENOMEM;
newinfo = vmalloc(sizeof(struct ipt_table_info) - + SMP_ALIGN(tmp.size) * NR_CPUS); + + SMP_ALIGN(tmp.size) * num_possible_cpus()); if (!newinfo) return -ENOMEM;
@@ -1460,7 +1460,7 @@ = { 0, 0, 0, { 0 }, { 0 }, { } };
newinfo = vmalloc(sizeof(struct ipt_table_info) - + SMP_ALIGN(repl->size) * NR_CPUS); + + SMP_ALIGN(repl->size) * num_possible_cpus()); if (!newinfo) return -ENOMEM;
On 10/10/05, David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: seb@frankengul.org > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:25:07 +0200 > > > Indeed they are. Does the patch assume that cpus are numbered in a > > row ? > > Yes, and that assumption is incorrect. > > > Now, I reverted the patch for ip_tables.c, ip6_tables.c and ebtables.c. > > Everything is working ok (11h uptime). > > Right. > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
-- Joseph Murawski Hartford, CT - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |