Re: [IPSEC]: Don't warn if high-order hash resize fails

2007-05-14 Thread David Miller
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:39:41 +1000 > [IPSEC]: Check validity of direction in xfrm_policy_byid > > The function xfrm_policy_byid takes a dir argument but finds the policy > using the index instead. We only use the dir argument to update the > policy count f

Re: [IPSEC]: Don't warn if high-order hash resize fails

2007-05-14 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:27:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > In fact that's a clue. If you add them all up they come out at the > same value. So we're getting the directions mixed up... Found the problem. It was my own fault in a way :) [IPSEC]: Check validity of direction in xfrm_policy_b

Re: [IPSEC]: Don't warn if high-order hash resize fails

2007-05-14 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:26:57PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:07:33PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > Good point. A bit of dd-ing shows that I've got a negative value > > in xfrm_policy_count[0] (0xfff6). > > In fact the other two directions are bogus too, OUT say

Re: [IPSEC]: Don't warn if high-order hash resize fails

2007-05-14 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:07:33PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > Good point. A bit of dd-ing shows that I've got a negative value > in xfrm_policy_count[0] (0xfff6). In fact the other two directions are bogus too, OUT says 10 and FWD says 5. The actual values are IN == 2, OUT == 2, FWD == 1.

Re: [IPSEC]: Don't warn if high-order hash resize fails

2007-05-14 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:36:35PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > Thanks I'll add the warning fix, but there must be some counter > bug if it tried to grow to order-7, that really shouldn't > be happening. Good point. A bit of dd-ing shows that I've got a negative value in xfrm_policy_count[0] (

Re: [IPSEC]: Don't warn if high-order hash resize fails

2007-05-13 Thread David Miller
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:48:37 +1000 > Hi Dave: > > I just got this when rekeying my VPN (2.6.21.1): > > events/0: page allocation failure. order:7, mode:0xd0 > [] __alloc_pages+0x1e5/0x2e0 > [] __get_free_pages+0x26/0x50 > [] xfrm_hash_alloc+0x2f/0x80 >

[IPSEC]: Don't warn if high-order hash resize fails

2007-05-13 Thread Herbert Xu
t does fail? [IPSEC]: Don't warn if high-order hash resize fails Multi-page allocations are always likely to fail. Since such failures are expected and non-critical in xfrm_hash_alloc, we shouldn't warn about them. Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cheers, -- Visit Opensw