From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: rmk@arm.linux.org.uk
Cc: xemul@openvz.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.25: Weird IPv4 stack behaviour, IPv6 is fine
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:30:22 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080428.033022.166259760.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080428101835.GA13522@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
From: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:18:35 +0100
> Further to this, it's looking like there's a nf_conntrack issue. Having
> placed similar printks in the netfilter code, I see the ipv4_confirm()
> hook normally returning 1 (NF_ACCEPT), but then decides to return 0
> (NF_DROP) and no ping replies.
There's already been a report about specific hashing problems with
conntrack on ARM. It has something to do with how structures are
padding on ARM combined with the following patch made by Patrick:
commit 0794935e21a18e7c171b604c31219b60ad9749a9
Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Date: Thu Jan 31 04:40:52 2008 -0800
[NETFILTER]: nf_conntrack: optimize hash_conntrack()
Avoid calling jhash three times and hash the entire tuple in one go.
__hash_conntrack | -485 # 760 -> 275, # inlines: 3 -> 1, size inlines: 717 -> 252
1 function changed, 485 bytes removed
Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
index ce4c4ba..4a2cce1 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
@@ -73,15 +73,19 @@ static unsigned int nf_conntrack_hash_rnd;
static u_int32_t __hash_conntrack(const struct nf_conntrack_tuple *tuple,
unsigned int size, unsigned int rnd)
{
- unsigned int a, b;
+ unsigned int n;
+ u_int32_t h;
- a = jhash2(tuple->src.u3.all, ARRAY_SIZE(tuple->src.u3.all),
- (tuple->src.l3num << 16) | tuple->dst.protonum);
- b = jhash2(tuple->dst.u3.all, ARRAY_SIZE(tuple->dst.u3.all),
- ((__force __u16)tuple->src.u.all << 16) |
- (__force __u16)tuple->dst.u.all);
+ /* The direction must be ignored, so we hash everything up to the
+ * destination ports (which is a multiple of 4) and treat the last
+ * three bytes manually.
+ */
+ n = (sizeof(tuple->src) + sizeof(tuple->dst.u3)) / sizeof(u32);
+ h = jhash2((u32 *)tuple, n,
+ rnd ^ (((__force __u16)tuple->dst.u.all << 16) |
+ tuple->dst.protonum));
- return ((u64)jhash_2words(a, b, rnd) * size) >> 32;
+ return ((u64)h * size) >> 32;
}
static inline u_int32_t hash_conntrack(const struct nf_conntrack_tuple *tuple)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-28 10:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20080427231411.GA5261@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
[not found] ` <48157685.1040709@openvz.org>
[not found] ` <20080428093130.GA1011@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
2008-04-28 10:18 ` 2.6.25: Weird IPv4 stack behaviour, IPv6 is fine Russell King
2008-04-28 10:30 ` David Miller [this message]
2008-04-28 12:00 ` Russell King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080428.033022.166259760.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox