Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 06:35 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > >> I think there's something more fundamental going on here. > > What happens is the conntrack code attempts to free > nf_conntrack_untracked back into the SL[U]B cache from which it > allocates other ct's. That shouldn't happen, the untracked conntrack is initialized to a refcount of 1, which is never released. > There's just one problem...that's a static struct > not from the cache. So, this is why we end up with the SLAB being > corrupted and the address immediately following the > nf_conntrack_untracked being corrupted. > > I shoved some debug comments into the destroy code to see if we were > trying to free nf_conntrack_untracked, and bingo. I have shoved a panic > in there now, will send you a backtrace. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
