Re: do_IRQ: stack overflow: 872..

Andi Kleen
2004-12-18T13:53:28Z

On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 12:51:30PM +0100, Bart De Schuymer wrote:
> >
> > Just take a look at the backtrace in the original post. It clearly
> > shows a problem. And it points strongly towards br-netfilter.
>
> I don't doubt you are a much better reader of such backtraces than me.
> However, let's count the number of times a function from
> net/bridge/br_netfilter.c is in the backtrace:
> 1. br_nf*: 6 times
> 2. *sabotage*: 3 times
> Seriously, out of 222 lines, only 9 from bridge-nf.
> The function ip_queue_xmit, OTOH, is 8 times in the trace.

Yep, but ip_queue_xmit doesn't call itself recursively. Someone
must be doing it. And that's likely the bridge code.

BTW not all of these entries are probably true, there can
be a lot of false positives.

> Anyway, as I already suspected weeks ago, AMD must be seeing some
> incompatibility between ip_queue (he's using snort) and the bridge-nf
> patch.
>
> He is using the patch (I gave it to him) below on top of the bridge-nf
> patch. Before using that patch he got a kernel panic occasionally.
> However he seems not to get a message in his syslog.

Ok, since this report seems to be for a totally non standard
severly hacked up kernel I suppose nothing from it can be concluded for
the mainline kernel. Thanks for clearing this up.

Note to the original poster: when you report a bug with a patched
kernel always mention it.

-Andi