Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:12:46 +0200 | From | Patrick McHardy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) |
| |
Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Wednesday 2009-04-15 23:07, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> Stephen Hemminger a écrit : >>> Looks like there is some recursive path into ip_tables that makes the >>> per-cpu spinlock break. I get lockup's with KVM networking. >>> >>> Suggestions? >> Well, it seems original patch was not so bad after all >> >> http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-devel/2006-January/023175.html >> >> So change per-cpu spinlocks to per-cpu rwlocks >> >> and use read_lock() in ipt_do_table() to allow recursion... >> > iptables cannot quite recurse into itself due to the comefrom stuff.
Actually it can by using the REJECT target:
> [ 2106.068550] [<ffffffff804b0195>] ? nf_hook_slow+0x89/0x104 > [ 2106.068552] [<ffffffff804b8ed0>] ? dst_output+0x0/0xb > [ 2106.068555] [<ffffffff80393925>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x8b/0x92 > [ 2106.068557] [<ffffffff804ba8c7>] ? __ip_local_out+0x98/0x9a > [ 2106.068559] [<ffffffff804ba8d2>] ? ip_local_out+0x9/0x1f > [ 2106.068562] [<ffffffff804babb4>] ? ip_push_pending_frames+0x2cc/0x33e > [ 2106.068566] [<ffffffff804dac79>] ? icmp_send+0x559/0x588 > [ 2106.068569] [<ffffffff8022d3a0>] ? task_rq_lock+0x46/0x79 > [ 2106.068571] [<ffffffff8023004f>] ? enqueue_task_fair+0x23b/0x293 > [ 2106.068575] [<ffffffffa00f5083>] ? reject_tg+0x41/0x30e [ipt_REJECT] > [ 2106.068578] [<ffffffffa024084f>] ? ipt_do_table+0x534/0x5f1 [ip_tables]
-- 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/
| |