* iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3)
@ 2006-05-14 15:31 Meelis Roos
2006-05-14 17:15 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-14 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev, vger.kernel.org
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 6971 bytes --]
Iptables seems to be broken on ppc for me. Kernel 2.6.17-rc3 (currently
compiling rc4+git). 32-bit ppc, ARCH=ppc with PReP target. Iptables
userland binary is from the latest Debian unstable (1.3.3-2).
The symptoms: iptables usually just tells Invalid Argument on any
modification attempt. I'm trying to set up a simple one-rule NAT for
test:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.30.0.0/24 -j SNAT --to 10.0.0.1
and it usually fails but has succeeded 2 times (I now have 2 rules of
this kind and they seem to just wotk once set up). Trying to delete the
second rule (either by replacing -A with -D or using just -D 2) gives
the same error.
Trying to strace the iptables just left me one D state iptables in
page_fault and I also got a SIGSEGV with strace from iptables just at
the beginning (trace is below) - so it appears ptrace on ppc might also
be broken.
Nothing in dmesg.
execve("/sbin/iptables", ["iptables", "-t", "nat", "-D", "POSTROUTING", "2"], [/* 14 vars */]) = 0
uname({sys="Linux", node="muuseum", ...}) = 0
brk(0) = 0x1001d000
access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x30019000
access("/etc/ld.so.preload", R_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY) = 3
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=21161, ...}) = 0
mmap(NULL, 21161, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x3001a000
close(3) = 0
access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib/tls/libdl.so.2", O_RDONLY) = 3
read(3, "\177ELF\1\2\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\24\0\0\0\1\0\0\r@\0\0\0004\0\0001\224\0\0\0\0\0004\0 \0\10\0(\0\34\0\33\0\0\0\6\0\0\0004\0\0\0004\0\0\0004\0\0\1\0\0\0\1\0\0\0\0\5\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\3\0\0 \230\0\0 \230\0\0 \230\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0 \254\0\0 \254\0\0\0\5\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\1\0\0.\354\0\1.\354\0\1.\354\0\0\1\260\0\0\3\0\0\0\0\7\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\2\0\0/ \0\1/ \0\1/ \0\0\0\340\0\0\0\340\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0014\0\0\0014\0\0\0014\0\0\0 \0\0\0 \0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4dt\345Q\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\4dt\345R\0\0.\354\0\1.\354\0\1.\354\0\0\1\24\0\0\1\24\0\0\0\5\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\1GNU\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\2\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\0\0\0\0K\0\0\0005\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0-\0\0\0&\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\'\0\0\0\23\0\0\0\34\0\0\0004\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0.\0\0\0\
17\0\0\0\0\0\0\0,\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0+\0\0\0\0\0\0\0(\0\0\0\0\0\0\0 \0\0\0\0\0\0\0#\0\0!
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\24\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\26\0\0\0\37\0\0\0002\0\0\0!", 512) = 512
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=13812, ...}) = 0
mmap(0xffdc000, 78316, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0) = 0xffdc000
mprotect(0xffdf000, 66028, PROT_NONE) = 0
mmap(0xffee000, 8192, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0x2000) = 0xffee000
close(3) = 0
access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib/tls/libnsl.so.1", O_RDONLY) = 3
read(3, "\177ELF\1\2\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\24\0\0\0\1\0\0>@\0\0\0004\0\1J0\0\0\0\0\0004\0 \0\10\0(\0\35\0\34\0\0\0\6\0\0\0004\0\0\0004\0\0\0004\0\0\1\0\0\0\1\0\0\0\0\5\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\3\0\1>d\0\1>d\0\1>d\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\1>x\0\1>x\0\0\0\5\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\1\0\1>\354\0\2>\354\0\2>\354\0\0\n@\0\0/\224\0\0\0\7\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\2\0\1?(\0\2?(\0\2?(\0\0\0\330\0\0\0\330\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0014\0\0\0014\0\0\0014\0\0\0 \0\0\0 \0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4dt\345Q\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\4dt\345R\0\1>\354\0\2>\354\0\2>\354\0\0\1\24\0\0\1\24\0\0\0\5\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\1GNU\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\2\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\0\0\0\1\303\0\0\0\365\0\0\0\0\0\0\0@\0\0\0\210\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\35\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0q\0\0\0\0\0\0\0n\0\0\0\323\0\0\0\266\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\246\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0*\0\0\
0\304\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\232\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0!
\0\0\0\0\0\0008\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\25", 512) = 512
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=85688, ...}) = 0
mmap(0xffa5000, 159360, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0) = 0xffa5000
mprotect(0xffb9000, 77440, PROT_NONE) = 0
mmap(0xffc8000, 8192, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0x13000) = 0xffc8000
mmap(0xffca000, 7808, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xffca000
close(3) = 0
access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
open("/lib/tls/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY) = 3
read(3, "\177ELF\1\2\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\24\0\0\0\1\0\1\314\220\0\0\0004\0\25,\364\0\0\0\0\0004\0 \0\n\0(\0?\0>\0\0\0\6\0\0\0004\0\0\0004\0\0\0004\0\0\1@\0\0\1@\0\0\0\5\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\3\0\24o\350\0\24o\350\0\24o\350\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\24\204\r\0\24\204\r\0\0\0\5\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\1\0\24\204\320\0\25\204\320\0\25\204\320\0\0\236D\0\0\306\274\0\0\0\7\0\1\0\0\0\0\0\2\0\24\357\30\0\25\357\30\0\25\357\30\0\0\0\350\0\0\0\350\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\1t\0\0\1t\0\0\1t\0\0\0 \0\0\0 \0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\7\0\24\331H\0\25\331H\0\25\331H\0\0\0\10\0\0\0(\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4dt\345P\0\24o\370\0\24o\370\0\24o\370\0\0\17\364\0\0\17\364\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4dt\345Q\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\4dt\345R\0\24\204\320\0\25\204\320\0\25\204\320\0\0j@\0\0j@\0\0\0\5\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\20\0\0\0\1GNU\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\2\0\0\0\6\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\37
7\0\0\10R\0\0\1\10\0\0\6z\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\323\0\0\6\341\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0!
\6j\0\0\5\314\0\0\0\0\0\0\10\v\0\0\6s\0\0\2\25\0\0\2\243\0\0\10\37\0\0\4\37\0\0\10\23\0\0\0\0\0\0\1\373\0\0\2z\0\0\7\342\0\0\6\26\0\0\4\300", 512) = 512
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=1390284, ...}) = 0
mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x30020000
mmap(0xfe30000, 1461132, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0) = 0xfe30000
mprotect(0xff79000, 113548, PROT_NONE) = 0
mmap(0xff88000, 45056, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0x148000) = 0xff88000
mmap(0xff93000, 7052, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xff93000
close(3) = 0
mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x30021000
mprotect(0xff88000, 24576, PROT_READ) = 0
mprotect(0xffc8000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0
mprotect(0xffee000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0
mprotect(0x30028000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0
munmap(0x3001a000, 21161) = 0
--- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) @ 0 (0) ---
+++ killed by SIGSEGV +++
--
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3)
2006-05-14 15:31 iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3) Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-14 17:15 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-15 17:29 ` Meelis Roos
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2006-05-14 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Meelis Roos; +Cc: netdev, vger.kernel.org
Meelis Roos wrote:
> Iptables seems to be broken on ppc for me. Kernel 2.6.17-rc3 (currently
> compiling rc4+git). 32-bit ppc, ARCH=ppc with PReP target. Iptables
> userland binary is from the latest Debian unstable (1.3.3-2).
>
> The symptoms: iptables usually just tells Invalid Argument on any
> modification attempt. I'm trying to set up a simple one-rule NAT for test:
> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.30.0.0/24 -j SNAT --to 10.0.0.1
> and it usually fails but has succeeded 2 times (I now have 2 rules of
> this kind and they seem to just wotk once set up). Trying to delete the
> second rule (either by replacing -A with -D or using just -D 2) gives
> the same error.
This should already be fixed in -rc4.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3)
2006-05-14 17:15 ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2006-05-15 17:29 ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-15 18:41 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-15 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: netdev
>> Iptables seems to be broken on ppc for me. Kernel 2.6.17-rc3 (currently
>> compiling rc4+git). 32-bit ppc, ARCH=ppc with PReP target. Iptables
>> userland binary is from the latest Debian unstable (1.3.3-2).
>>
>> The symptoms: iptables usually just tells Invalid Argument on any
>> modification attempt. I'm trying to set up a simple one-rule NAT for test:
>> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.30.0.0/24 -j SNAT --to 10.0.0.1
>> and it usually fails but has succeeded 2 times (I now have 2 rules of
>> this kind and they seem to just wotk once set up). Trying to delete the
>> second rule (either by replacing -A with -D or using just -D 2) gives
>> the same error.
>
>
> This should already be fixed in -rc4.
Unfortunately it was still there with yesterdays rc4+git.
--
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3)
2006-05-15 17:29 ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-15 18:41 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-15 19:28 ` Meelis Roos
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2006-05-15 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Meelis Roos; +Cc: netdev
Meelis Roos wrote:
>>> Iptables seems to be broken on ppc for me. Kernel 2.6.17-rc3 (currently
>>> compiling rc4+git). 32-bit ppc, ARCH=ppc with PReP target. Iptables
>>> userland binary is from the latest Debian unstable (1.3.3-2).
>>>
>>> The symptoms: iptables usually just tells Invalid Argument on any
>>> modification attempt. I'm trying to set up a simple one-rule NAT for
>>> test:
>>> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.30.0.0/24 -j SNAT --to 10.0.0.1
>>> and it usually fails but has succeeded 2 times (I now have 2 rules of
>>> this kind and they seem to just wotk once set up). Trying to delete the
>>> second rule (either by replacing -A with -D or using just -D 2) gives
>>> the same error.
>>
>>
>>
>> This should already be fixed in -rc4.
>
>
> Unfortunately it was still there with yesterdays rc4+git.
I may have misinterpreted your report - are you running a 32bit or 64bit
kernel?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3)
2006-05-15 18:41 ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2006-05-15 19:28 ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-15 19:36 ` Patrick McHardy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-15 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: netdev
>>> This should already be fixed in -rc4.
>>
>> Unfortunately it was still there with yesterdays rc4+git.
>
> I may have misinterpreted your report - are you running a 32bit or 64bit
> kernel?
32-bit kernel, this is a Motorola Powerstack II macine with 604e. PReP
subarch, only buildable from the old ARCH=ppc code (not yet migrated to
ARCH=powerpc).
--
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3)
2006-05-15 19:28 ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-15 19:36 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-15 20:07 ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-24 9:20 ` Meelis Roos
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2006-05-15 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Meelis Roos; +Cc: netdev
Meelis Roos wrote:
>>>> This should already be fixed in -rc4.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it was still there with yesterdays rc4+git.
>>
>>
>> I may have misinterpreted your report - are you running a 32bit or 64bit
>> kernel?
>
>
> 32-bit kernel, this is a Motorola Powerstack II macine with 604e. PReP
> subarch, only buildable from the old ARCH=ppc code (not yet migrated to
> ARCH=powerpc).
Ah OK, I thought it was related to the new compat code, but that isn't
the case. Your trace doesn't give much clues, except that it shows that
iptables dies with a SIGSEGV, which might be a bug in userspace or in
the kernel. Which was the last kernel that worked for you, and can you
try that version again to rule out userspace bugs?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3)
2006-05-15 19:36 ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2006-05-15 20:07 ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-24 9:20 ` Meelis Roos
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-15 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: netdev
> Ah OK, I thought it was related to the new compat code, but that isn't
> the case. Your trace doesn't give much clues, except that it shows that
> iptables dies with a SIGSEGV, which might be a bug in userspace or in
> the kernel. Which was the last kernel that worked for you, and can you
> try that version again to rule out userspace bugs?
It's a fresh install in the new role with a new HDD and 2 NICs for a
firewall so I have not tried earlier kernels with iptables. I do have
sarge's 2.6.8 also working on that machine but not the kernels from
testing and unstable (2.5.15 and 2.6.16) because the lack of prep
support at the moment. I could problably compile some intermediate
kernels but I haven't tested even the working 2.6.8 first with iptables
yet.
I will be away tomorrow but can test some kernels the day after
tomorrow. Only some of them because it's not a fast compile engine.
It only SIGSEGVs when ptraced and just gets Invalid Argument errors when
not traced so this SEGV may be something different (perhaps ptrace
related).
--
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3)
2006-05-15 19:36 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-15 20:07 ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-24 9:20 ` Meelis Roos
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-24 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: netdev
>> 32-bit kernel, this is a Motorola Powerstack II macine with 604e. PReP
>> subarch, only buildable from the old ARCH=ppc code (not yet migrated to
>> ARCH=powerpc).
>
> Ah OK, I thought it was related to the new compat code, but that isn't
> the case. Your trace doesn't give much clues, except that it shows that
> iptables dies with a SIGSEGV, which might be a bug in userspace or in
> the kernel. Which was the last kernel that worked for you, and can you
> try that version again to rule out userspace bugs?
Even worse. With yesterdays git iptable_nat loads but iptable_filter
doesn't even load (Invalid argument).
--
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-05-24 9:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-05-14 15:31 iptables broken on ppc (ptrace too?) (2.6.17-rc3) Meelis Roos
2006-05-14 17:15 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-15 17:29 ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-15 18:41 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-15 19:28 ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-15 19:36 ` Patrick McHardy
2006-05-15 20:07 ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-24 9:20 ` Meelis Roos
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).