Re: do_IRQ: stack overflow: 872..

[Bart De Schuymer <bdschuym@pandora.be>]

Op za, 18-12-2004 te 12:14 +0100, schreef Andi Kleen:
> > The bridge-nf code does not use recursive function calls and there is no
> > long consecutive function calling. Furthermore, there is no function in
> > the bridge-nf code that uses a large part of the stack.
> 
> 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.

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.

Bart


--- linux-2.4.28-ebt-brnf/net/bridge/br_netfilter.c.old 2004-11-27 23:43:18.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.4.28-ebt-brnf/net/bridge/br_netfilter.c     2004-11-27
23:52:05.000000000 +0100
@@ -870,6 +870,10 @@ static unsigned int ip_sabotage_out(unsi
 {
        struct sk_buff *skb = *pskb;
 
+if (!skb) {
+       printk("TROUBLE IN IP_SABOTAGE_OUT: skb==NULL\n");
+       goto in_trouble;
+}
 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
        if (!skb->nf_bridge) {
                struct vlan_ethhdr *hdr =
@@ -884,6 +888,10 @@ static unsigned int ip_sabotage_out(unsi
        }
 #endif
 
+if (!out) {
+       printk("TROUBLE IN IP_SABOTAGE_OUT: out == NULL\n");
+       goto in_trouble;
+}
        if ((out->hard_start_xmit == br_dev_xmit &&
            okfn != br_nf_forward_finish &&
            okfn != br_nf_local_out_finish &&
@@ -920,6 +928,9 @@ static unsigned int ip_sabotage_out(unsi
        }
 
        return NF_ACCEPT;
+in_trouble:
+       dump_stack();
+       return NF_DROP;
 }
 
 /* For br_nf_local_out we need (prio = NF_BR_PRI_FIRST), to insure that
innocent