On 12/21/2016 12:15 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 12/21/2016 08:03 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Shahar Klein
wrote:
[...]
Looks like you added a debug printk inside tcf_destroy() too,
which seems racy with filter creation, it should not happen since
in both cases w
On 12/21/2016 01:58 PM, Shahar Klein wrote:
On 12/21/2016 12:15 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 12/21/2016 08:03 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Shahar Klein
wrote:
[...]
Looks like you added a debug printk inside tcf_destroy() too,
which seems racy with filter creation,
On 12/21/2016 9:03 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Shahar Klein wrote:
Tried it with same results
This piece is pretty interesting:
[ 408.554689] DEBUGG:SK thread-2853[cpu-1] setting tp_created to 1
tp=94b5b02805a0 back=94b9ea932060
[ 408.574258] DEBUGG:SK
On 12/21/2016 08:03 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Shahar Klein wrote:
[...]
Looks like you added a debug printk inside tcf_destroy() too,
which seems racy with filter creation, it should not happen since
in both cases we take RTNL lock.
Don't know if changing all RCU_
On 12/20/2016 1:47 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Hi Shahar,
On 12/20/2016 07:22 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
On 12/19/2016 7:58 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Shahar Klein
wrote:
On 12/13/2016 12:51 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Or Gerlitz
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Shahar Klein wrote:
>
> Tried it with same results
This piece is pretty interesting:
[ 408.554689] DEBUGG:SK thread-2853[cpu-1] setting tp_created to 1
tp=94b5b02805a0 back=94b9ea932060
[ 408.574258] DEBUGG:SK thread-2853[cpu-1] add/change filter by:
f
On 12/19/2016 7:58 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
On 12/13/2016 12:51 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann
wrote:
Note that there's still the RCU fi
Hi Shahar,
On 12/20/2016 07:22 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
On 12/19/2016 7:58 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
On 12/13/2016 12:51 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann
On 12/13/2016 12:51 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Note that there's still the RCU fix missing for the deletion race that
Cong will still send out, but you say that the only thing you do is to
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
>
>
> On 12/13/2016 12:51 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann
>>> wrote:
>>>
Note that there's still the RCU fix missing for the de
On 12/12/2016 9:07 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
On 12/12/2016 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Hi Shahar,
On 12/12/2016 10:43 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
Hi All,
sorry for the spam, the first time was sent with html part and was
rejected.
We ob
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
>> Note that there's still the RCU fix missing for the deletion race that
>> Cong will still send out, but you say that the only thing you do is to
>> add a single rule, but no other ope
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Note that there's still the RCU fix missing for the deletion race that
> Cong will still send out, but you say that the only thing you do is to
> add a single rule, but no other operation in involved during that test?
What's missing to ha
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
>
>
> On 12/12/2016 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>
>> Hi Shahar,
>>
>> On 12/12/2016 10:43 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> sorry for the spam, the first time was sent with html part and was
>>> rejected.
>>>
>>> We observed a
On 12/12/2016 3:28 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
Hi Shahar,
On 12/12/2016 10:43 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
Hi All,
sorry for the spam, the first time was sent with html part and was
rejected.
We observed an issue where a classifier instance next member is
pointing back to itself, causing a CPU so
Hi Shahar,
On 12/12/2016 10:43 AM, Shahar Klein wrote:
Hi All,
sorry for the spam, the first time was sent with html part and was rejected.
We observed an issue where a classifier instance next member is pointing back
to itself, causing a CPU soft lockup.
We found it by running traffic on man
16 matches
Mail list logo