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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1310191919290.1469@ssi.bg>
Date:	Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:37:10 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
cc:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brooks <mark@...dbalancer.org>,
	Phil Oester <kernel@...uxace.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Use destination address determined by
 IPVS


	Hello,

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?

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
--
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