https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430391
Bringing up interface bond0:
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL
pointer dereference at virtual address
printing eip: c0506fd8 *pde = 7f5f8067
Oops: [#1] SMP
Modules linked in: bonding ipv6 xt_pkttype ipt_LOG ipt_iprange
ipt_REJECT
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No IRQ balancing should be done at all for networking device
interrupts, with zero exceptions. It destroys performance.
Does irqbalanced need to be taught about this? And how about the
initial balancing, so that each network card gets assigned to one
Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Subject: [PATCH] nested VLAN: fix lockdep's recursive locking warning
Allow vlans nesting other vlans without lockdep's warnings (max. 8 levels).
Reported-by: Benny Amorsen
Tested-by: Benny Amorsen (?) NEEDS TESTING!
Signed-off-by: Jarek
DM == David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Reply:
Opcode: reply (0x0002)
Sender HW: 00:AA.00:AA:00:AA
Sender IP: 192.168.0.1
Target HW: 00:AA:00:AA:00:AA
Target IP:192.168.0.1
DM And this is exactly a sensible response in my opinion.
Why send the reply at all? Sending a unicast
DM == David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DM When the user does a recvmsg() or a poll() on the socket, we will
DM notice the bad checksum then and increment InErrors. We could in
DM this case correct the InDatagrams counter by decrementing it in
DM this case.
Does that mean that InDatagrams
AK == Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AK actually the impact can be quite negative, imagine doing a tcpdump
AK on a 10gig interface with vlan's enabled - all of a sudden you
AK might accidentally flood the system with a 100-fold increase in
AK traffic and force the stack to dump all those
DM == David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DM Containers are I believe a step backwards, and we're better than
DM that.
Are there any alternative proposals?
I guess it would be a start if you could run processes with a
different policy table as default. Ideally traffic from those
processes
DM == David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DM To be honest I think this form of virtualization is a complete
DM waste of time, even the openvz approach.
You are only considering the security values of OpenVZ. Where I work,
OpenVZ and Linux-vserver are used for their ability to cleanly
AvdV == Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AvdV even if you have NO power savings you still don't meet your
AvdV criteria. That's basic ethernet for you
AvdV That's what I was trying to say; your criteria is unrealistic
AvdV regardless of what the kernel does, ethernet already
