search for: init_conntrack

.... That points me to two scenarios: 1) the related connection entry was not found in the expectation list due to a failed masked comparison or 2) the related connection entry was found and further operations in ip_conntrack_core.c:init_conntrack invalidated the expectation. Again, I feel that this might be strictly a 64 bit kernel issue as I'm sure if the conntrack for related connection didn't work for 32 bit kernels, I would have found a lot more discussio...

...L); if (!h) { + READ_LOCK(&ip_conntrack_lock); + h = LIST_FIND(&unconfirmed, conntrack_tuple_cmp, + struct ip_conntrack_tuple_hash *, &tuple, NULL); + if (h) + atomic_inc(&h->ctrack->ct_general.use); + READ_UNLOCK(&ip_conntrack_lock); + } + if (!h) { h = init_conntrack(&tuple, proto, skb); if (!h) return NULL; This patch reliably ends the race, and we no longer have mysteriously disappearing packets. Not being netfilter experts, we're not certain that this patch has no other side effects, and would appreciate any advice or alternative fixes that...

...e; c012ccde <__vmalloc+3e/200> Trace; d095d90d <[iptable_filter].data.end+3fae/56a1> Trace; d0931a45 <[ip_conntrack]__unexpect_related+5/60> Trace; d0932315 <[ip_conntrack]icmp_error_track+d5/1a0> Trace; c01305bf <__alloc_pages+3f/170> Trace; d09327f7 <[ip_conntrack]init_conntrack+2a7/390> Trace; d0934700 <[ip_conntrack]tcp_exp_matches_pkt+40/46> Trace; c01f3898 <nf_sockopt+d8/120> Trace; c01f38fc <nf_setsockopt+1c/20> Trace; c0200a49 <ip_setsockopt+759/8b0> Trace; c021ed21 <inet_setsockopt+21/30> Trace; c01e7663 <sys_setsockopt+53/70>...