From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Neal P. Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: linux 3.4.43 : kernel crash at __nf_conntrack_confirm
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 03:42:32 -0400
Message-ID: <20151022034232.58e5af7a@playground>
References: <CAOxq_8PF91fpX9jYTgBbXnOVeVfSu3tytu-3P_Zr5OodGRoz+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOxq_8Pt7VMwkV8+wdjS9vj=-L0L8Xxkd3Beit0zZN_oR6ixhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151018080702.GA14564@breakpoint.cc>
 <CAOxq_8P9Qgy5+qWNCHtbG8qJwfdKSO3ZiDWoQW_6BVS-+hcTRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151021211911.GD31323@breakpoint.cc>
 <CAOxq_8PLX_+w-7mfx1Agh+utogEiFWHSmEFd0Bax1LY6qbEN-w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ani Sinha <ani@arista.com>
To: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from MAIL1.WPI.EDU ([130.215.36.91]:52269 "EHLO MAIL1.WPI.EDU"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753388AbbJVHmg (ORCPT <rfc822;netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 03:42:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAOxq_8PLX_+w-7mfx1Agh+utogEiFWHSmEFd0Bax1LY6qbEN-w@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:26:35 -0700
Ani Sinha <ani@arista.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> wrote:
> > Ani Sinha <ani@arista.com> wrote:
> >> >> > commit c6825c0976fa7893692e0e43b09740b419b23c09
> >> >> > Author: Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
> >> >> > Date:   Wed Jan 29 19:34:14 2014 +0100
> >> >> >      netfilter: nf_conntrack: fix RCU race in nf_conntrack_find_get
> >> >> >
> >> >> > and a followup patch :
> >> >> >
> >> >> > commit e53376bef2cd97d3e3f61fdc677fb8da7d03d0da
> >> >> > Author: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
> >> >> > Date:   Mon Feb 3 20:01:53 2014 +0100
> >> >> >         netfilter: nf_conntrack: don't release a conntrack with non-zero refcnt
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> > These for instance fix such bugs.
> >>
> >> So since both these patches were not backported to 3.4 series and
> >> since now we have evidence of a crash that points to issues which the
> >> patches fix, should we consider backporting the above patches to 3.4?
> >
> > Yes.
> 
> Ok cool. I will send out backport patches for 3.4 corresponding to
> both the above patches.

As an FYI, Zefan Li just released 3.4.110; I didn't see the fix in the list. No surprise, of course; it does take more than 12 hours to get patches right, as I am painfully aware.

I just bumped Smoothwall Express to 3.4.109 in Update4, and 3.4.110 contains fixes that relate to Smoothwall. May I safely assume that these patches will apply easily to 3.4.110? The obvious answer is, "Yes," but I'd like a bit of reassurance (<pat> <pat> "There, there; it'll be fine. The patches will be OK.") before I prepare and release the next update.

Neal