Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:29:10 -0200 (BRST) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.23 crash on Intel SDS2 |
| |
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Shane Wegner wrote:
> > > It's a database machine running MySQL and Postgres. The > > > MySQL server runs about 4 queries/sec and PostGres only as > > > needed. It also does some minor mail service, say 2 > > > messages per minute and runs apache at about 10 requests > > > per minute. > > > > > > > > There are no significant driver changes in -pre4 that could affect you. > > > > > > > > > > Can you please try with mem=900M? I suspect something in the VM changes > > > > > might be causing this. > > > > > > Just tried with mem=900m and subsequently mem=850m so as no > > > himem pages were available with no effect. Machine still > > > crashed. > > Hi, > > Well, I tried backing out the vm changes from pre4, no > luck so started disabling things. So far, it seems my > firewall script is at fault. I looked through the > pre3-pre4 diff and the only change to the nat code is a > one-liner. > > # The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log > # -------------------------------------------- > # 03/09/04 laforge@netfilter.org 1.1063.41.4 > # [NETFILTER]: NAT range calculation fix. > # > # This patch fixes a logic bug in NAT range calculations, which also > # causes a large slowdown when ICMP floods go through NAT. > # > # Author: Karlis Piesenieks > # -------------------------------------------- > diff -Nru a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c > --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c Sun Nov 16 13:41:25 2003 > +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c Sun Nov 16 13:41:25 2003 > @@ -157,8 +157,8 @@ > continue; > } > > - if ((mr->range[i].flags & IP_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED) > - && proto->in_range(&newtuple, IP_NAT_MANIP_SRC, > + if (!(mr->range[i].flags & IP_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED) > + || proto->in_range(&newtuple, IP_NAT_MANIP_SRC, > &mr->range[i].min, &mr->range[i].max)) > return 1; > } > > Reversing that change has thus far fixed things over here > but time will tell. Is there any possible way that that > particular change is somehow not smp safe?
That change is broken, its known to break other setups.
It has been reverted in the BK tree.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |