On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Harald Welte wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 08:15:53PM -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > > Is the following patch correct? ip_conntrack_event_cache should never be > > called with ip_conntrack_lock held and ct_add_counters does not need to be > > called with ip_conntrack_lock held. > > No, it's not correct. ct_add_countes has to be called from within > write_lock_bh() on ip_conntrack_lock. > > So if you keep the ct_add_counters() call where it is and only apply the > rest of your patch (i.e. deferring of ip_conntrack_event_cache() call), > then I think your patch would work. > > However, the whole eventcache needs to be audited, it's called from a > number of places. > > As Patrick wrote he's working on a solution, I'm not going to intervene > or replicate his work. As a interim solution I'd suggest disabling > CONFIG_IP_NF_CT_ACCT [which can't be vital anyway, since it was only > added in net-2.6.14 (and thus -mm)].
Thanks for the explanation Harald, i based the ct_add_counters assumption on other callers of it. Thanks, Zwane - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/