Date:	Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:40:25 +0800
From:	Brad Campbell <brad@...rfbargle.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC:	Bart De Schuymer <bdschuym@...dora.be>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KVM induced panic on 2.6.38[2367] & 2.6.39

On 07/06/11 21:30, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> On 07.06.2011 05:33, Brad Campbell wrote:
>> On 07/06/11 04:10, Bart De Schuymer wrote:
>>> Hi Brad,
>>>
>>> This has probably nothing to do with ebtables, so please rmmod in case
>>> it's loaded.
>>> A few questions I didn't directly see an answer to in the threads I
>>> scanned...
>>> I'm assuming you actually use the bridging firewall functionality. So,
>>> what iptables modules do you use? Can you reduce your iptables rules to
>>> a core that triggers the bug?
>>> Or does it get triggered even with an empty set of firewall rules?
>>> Are you using a stock .35 kernel or is it patched?
>>> Is this something I can trigger on a poor guy's laptop or does it
>>> require specialized hardware (I'm catching up on qemu/kvm...)?
>>
>> Not specialised hardware as such, I've just not been able to reproduce
>> it outside of this specific operating scenario.
>
> The last similar problem we've had was related to the 32/64 bit compat
> code. Are you running 32 bit userspace on a 64 bit kernel?

No, 32 bit Guest OS, but a completely 64 bit userspace on a 64 bit kernel.

Userspace is current Debian Stable. Kernel is Vanilla and qemu-kvm is 
current git


>> I can't trigger it with empty firewall rules as it relies on a DNAT to
>> occur. If I try it directly to the internal IP address (as I have to
>> without netfilter loaded) then of course nothing fails.
>>
>> It's a pain in the bum as a fault, but it's one I can easily reproduce
>> as long as I use the same set of circumstances.
>>
>> I'll try using 3.0-rc2 (current git) tonight, and if I can reproduce it
>> on that then I'll attempt to pare down the IPTABLES rules to a bare
>> minimum.
>>
>> It is nothing to do with ebtables as I don't compile it. I'm not really
>> sure about "bridging firewall" functionality. I just use a couple of
>> hand coded bash scripts to set the tables up.
>
>  From one of your previous mails:
>
>> # CONFIG_BRIDGE_NF_EBTABLES is not set
>
> How about CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER?
>

It was compiled in.

With the following table set I was able to reproduce the problem on 
3.0-rc2. Replaced my IP with xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, but otherwise unmodified

root@srv:~# iptables-save
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.10 on Tue Jun  7 22:11:30 2011
*filter
:INPUT ACCEPT [978:107619]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [142:7068]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [1659:291870]
-A INPUT -i ppp0 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT ! -i ppp0 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -i ppp0 -j DROP
COMMIT
# Completed on Tue Jun  7 22:11:30 2011
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.10 on Tue Jun  7 22:11:30 2011
*nat
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [813:49170]
:INPUT ACCEPT [91:7090]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [267:20731]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [296:22281]
-A PREROUTING -d xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/32 ! -i ppp0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 
-j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.253.198
COMMIT
# Completed on Tue Jun  7 22:11:30 2011
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.10 on Tue Jun  7 22:11:30 2011
*mangle
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [2729:274392]
:INPUT ACCEPT [2508:262976]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [142:7068]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [1674:293701]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [2131:346411]
-A FORWARD -o ppp0 -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -m tcpmss --mss 
1400:1536 -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu
COMMIT
# Completed on Tue Jun  7 22:11:30 2011

I've just compiled out CONFIG_BRIDGE_NETFILTER and can no longer access 
the address the way I was doing it, so that's a no-go for me.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists