On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 08:15:53PM -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > Is the following patch correct? ip_conntrack_event_cache should never be > called with ip_conntrack_lock held and ct_add_counters does not need to be > called with ip_conntrack_lock held. No, it's not correct. ct_add_countes has to be called from within write_lock_bh() on ip_conntrack_lock. So if you keep the ct_add_counters() call where it is and only apply the rest of your patch (i.e. deferring of ip_conntrack_event_cache() call), then I think your patch would work. However, the whole eventcache needs to be audited, it's called from a number of places. As Patrick wrote he's working on a solution, I'm not going to intervene or replicate his work. As a interim solution I'd suggest disabling CONFIG_IP_NF_CT_ACCT [which can't be vital anyway, since it was only added in net-2.6.14 (and thus -mm)]. Cheers, -- - Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://netfilter.org/ ============================================================================ "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Attachment:
pgpDjdhpaT3Qb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0
- From: Zwane Mwaikambo <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0
- References:
- 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0
- From: Zwane Mwaikambo <[email protected]>
- 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0
- Prev by Date: Re: lockmeter: fix lock counter roll over issue
- Next by Date: Re: usb camera failing in 2.6.13-rc6
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0
- Index(es):
