Re: ebtables problems on 2.6.19.1 *and* 2.6.16.36

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> I'm trying to reproduce this (without success so far), please send your
> kernel config and your ebtables script.
> 
> You could try if 2.6.19 works, there were some ebtables changes in
> 2.6.19.1 that touched this code.

We're hitting this too, on both 2.6.16.36 and 2.6.19.1.

BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address f8cec008
  printing eip:
c0462272
*pde = 00000000
Oops: 0000 [#1]
SMP
Modules linked in: e1000
CPU:    1
EIP:    0060:[<c0462272>]    Not tainted VLI
EFLAGS: 00010286   (2.6.19.1-1-bigmem #1)
EIP is at translate_table+0x2b3/0xddf
eax: f8ce2000   ebx: 00000004   ecx: f6d53e90   edx: f8ce2000
esi: f8cebfa0   edi: 0000000e   ebp: 00000000   esp: f6d53e08
ds: 007b   es: 007b   ss: 0068
Process ebtables (pid: 4788, ti=f6d52000 task=f6d51550 task.ti=f6d52000)
Stack: f6d53e40 c0540440 00000007 f6d53ebc 00000001 00000028 00000000 
00000000
        00000004 00000fa0 00000fd0 f8d38000 f8ce2000 f6d53e90 00000000 
80000000
        00000000 00000000 00000000 00000004 00000014 00000000 00000014 
00000600
Call Trace:
  [<c0462f5f>] do_replace+0x113/0x6da
  [<c0142267>] get_page_from_freelist+0x8c/0xa8
  [<c0463f4c>] do_ebt_set_ctl+0x2d/0x2e
  [<c03efbc2>] nf_sockopt+0xfa/0xfc
  [<c03efbe7>] nf_setsockopt+0x23/0x2b
  [<c03fac35>] ip_setsockopt+0x86/0x91
  [<c03d54ef>] sock_common_setsockopt+0x23/0x2f
  [<c03d2d69>] sys_setsockopt+0x61/0xac
  [<c03d33f3>] sys_socketcall+0x1e9/0x249
  [<c0114348>] do_page_fault+0x0/0x664
  [<c0102bc5>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x79
  [<c047007b>] svc_recv+0x9c/0x3f5
  =======================
Code: 30 3b 28 0f 83 5c 02 00 00 8b 54 24 30 8b 74 24 24 8b 4c 24 34 8b 
5c 24 4c 03 72 24 8b 79 20 89 5c 24 20 c7 44 24 1c 00 00 00 00 <8b> 56 
68 8b 46 6c 29 d0 31 d2 89 44 24 14 8b 06 85 c0 0f 84 f7
EIP: [<c0462272>] translate_table+0x2b3/0xddf SS:ESP 0068:f6d53e08


Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address f8a3b00c
  printing eip:
c03cce45
*pde = 00000000
Oops: 0000 [#13]
SMP
Modules linked in: e1000
CPU:    1
EIP:    0060:[<c03cce45>]    Not tainted VLI
EFLAGS: 00010246   (2.6.16.36-1-bigmem #1)
EIP is at translate_table+0x47b/0xfc2
eax: d8fbbc3c   ebx: 00000098   ecx: c049b780   edx: 00000000
esi: f8a3afa0   edi: 0000000e   ebp: 00000001   esp: d8fbbb7c
ds: 007b   es: 007b   ss: 0068
Process ebtables (pid: 7917, threadinfo=d8fba000 task=e7892550)
Stack: <0>c049b75c f8a3af78 c04468f8 d8fbbbcc c049b740 00000007 d8fbbc68 
d30f4260
        000000d2 d8fba000 d30f4240 d8fba000 00000028 00000004 00000000 
00000004
        00000000 00000fa0 00000fd0 f8a8e000 00000000 f8a38000 00000000 
00000000
Call Trace:
  [<c03cdbd0>] do_replace+0x16b/0x887
  [<c03ced74>] copy_everything_to_user+0x21a/0x35c
  [<c03ceef6>] do_ebt_set_ctl+0x40/0x42
  [<c0354ee0>] nf_sockopt+0x11f/0x121
  [<c0354f19>] nf_setsockopt+0x37/0x3b
  [<c0360b14>] ip_setsockopt+0x3f9/0xb0e
  [<c0354e6e>] nf_sockopt+0xad/0x121
  [<c0354f54>] nf_getsockopt+0x37/0x3b
  [<c03617e6>] ip_getsockopt+0x5bd/0x62b
  [<c012360e>] current_fs_time+0x5d/0x78
  [<c0178813>] touch_atime+0x7d/0xcd
  [<c014b366>] zap_pte_range+0xf1/0x316
  [<c014b68e>] unmap_page_range+0x103/0x174
  [<c02228a7>] prio_tree_remove+0x77/0xe7
  [<c014358c>] buffered_rmqueue+0x155/0x209
  [<c014358c>] buffered_rmqueue+0x155/0x209
  [<c014376e>] get_page_from_freelist+0x8c/0xa6
  [<c014376e>] get_page_from_freelist+0x8c/0xa6
  [<c01437de>] __alloc_pages+0x56/0x309
  [<c015274c>] page_add_file_rmap+0x2a/0x2c
  [<c014d48d>] do_anonymous_page+0x122/0x22a
  [<c014dabd>] __handle_mm_fault+0x138/0x326
  [<c03391e6>] sock_common_setsockopt+0x33/0x37
  [<c0336c88>] sys_setsockopt+0x6c/0xb2
  [<c033739a>] sys_socketcall+0x1f4/0x254
  [<c01160e5>] do_page_fault+0x0/0x630
  [<c0102c7f>] sysenter_past_esp+0x54/0x75
Code: 24 8b bc 24 8c 00 00 00 8b 84 24 88 00 00 00 8b 54 24 64 8b 74 24 
44 03 77 24 8b 78 20 c7 44 24 38 00 00 00 00 89 54 24 3c 31 d2 <8b> 4e 
6c 8b 5e 68 29 d9 89 4c 24 30 8b 06 85 c0 0f 84 14 02 00


It seems to happen when flushing a user-defined ebtable, or removing a 
rule -- but not every time. It leaves the ebtable userspace process in D 
state on 2.6.19.1 but not on 2.6.16.36 (?).

Considering I've never had these problems before, and that both stable 
(2.6.16.36) and current (2.6.19.1) exhibit this issue, I'd venture to 
guess that it's something that went into both of them very recently.

-Chris