Eric Dumazet wrote: > OK thanks David, I reproduced the problem on latest net-next-2.6 tree > too. I wonder why nobody hit this before. Hmm, my config had not NETFILTER_DEBUG enabled, that's why I didn't hit that assertion. > [352468.556484] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [352468.556511] WARNING: at net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.c:82 > __nf_ct_ext_add+0x1c2/0x1e0 [nf_conntrack]() > [352468.556559] Hardware name: ProLiant BL460c G1 > [352468.556582] Modules linked in: nf_defrag_ipv4 nf_conntrack_netlink > nf_conntrack sch_hfsc sch_sfq ipmi_devintf ipmi_si ipmi_msghandler hpilo > bonding [last unloaded: nf_conntrack_ipv4] > [352468.556675] Pid: 18852, comm: conntrack Tainted: G W > 2.6.33-rc5-02754-g0ea034c-dirty #545 > [352468.556721] Call Trace: > [352468.556742] [<c054d45f>] ? printk+0x1d/0x26 > [352468.556767] [<c023bbc2>] warn_slowpath_common+0x72/0xa0 > [352468.556795] [<fee75e42>] ? __nf_ct_ext_add+0x1c2/0x1e0 > [nf_conntrack] > [352468.556825] [<fee75e42>] ? __nf_ct_ext_add+0x1c2/0x1e0 > [nf_conntrack] > [352468.556854] [<c023bc0a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 > [352468.556882] [<fee75e42>] __nf_ct_ext_add+0x1c2/0x1e0 [nf_conntrack] > [352468.556911] [<fee70dcc>] ? nf_conntrack_alloc+0x10c/0x1a0 > [nf_conntrack] > [352468.556940] [<feecaf59>] ctnetlink_create_conntrack+0x339/0x360 > [nf_conntrack_netlink] > [352468.556987] [<feeca26b>] ? ctnetlink_parse_tuple+0x14b/0x1c0 > [nf_conntrack_netlink] > [352468.557039] [<fee6fd60>] ? __nf_conntrack_find+0x70/0x100 > [nf_conntrack] > [352468.557068] [<feecb090>] ctnetlink_new_conntrack+0x110/0x680 > [nf_conntrack_netlink] > [352468.557113] [<c04d93b5>] nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0x125/0x180 > [352468.557140] [<c054ec57>] ? __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x197/0x230 > [352468.557167] [<c04d9290>] ? nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0x0/0x180 > [352468.557194] [<c04d5896>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x96/0xc0 > [352468.557219] [<c04d927c>] nfnetlink_rcv+0x1c/0x30 > [352468.557245] [<c04d5545>] netlink_unicast+0x255/0x2a0 > [352468.557274] [<c04d5d3f>] netlink_sendmsg+0x1af/0x2b0 > [352468.557300] [<c04a86ec>] sock_sendmsg+0xac/0xe0 > [352468.559358] [<c029d042>] ? find_get_page+0x22/0xd0 > [352468.559385] [<c029d9dc>] ? filemap_fault+0x8c/0x3c0 > [352468.559410] [<c04a905a>] sys_sendto+0xaa/0xd0 > [352468.559436] [<c02b3780>] ? __do_fault+0x370/0x470 > [352468.559462] [<c02b54d9>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x1d9/0x7d0 > [352468.559488] [<c04aa245>] sys_socketcall+0x195/0x280 > [352468.559514] [<c0202c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26 > [352468.559539] ---[ end trace 6ecb842e4e35a653 ]--- > > Could you try following patch ? > > Thanks > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c > index 0ffe689..d2657aa 100644 > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_netlink.c > @@ -923,7 +923,7 @@ ctnetlink_change_status(struct nf_conn *ct, const struct nlattr * const cda[]) > unsigned int status = ntohl(nla_get_be32(cda[CTA_STATUS])); > d = ct->status ^ status; > > - if (d & (IPS_EXPECTED|IPS_CONFIRMED|IPS_DYING)) > + if (d & (IPS_EXPECTED|IPS_DYING)) > /* unchangeable */ > return -EBUSY; I think that we should explicitly report if the user unsets IPS_CONFIRMED. Please, don't change this. Apart from that, the patch seems fine to me. 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
