linux-kernel - Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:04:44 -0400
From:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hwclock failure in x86.git

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:13:51 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> Kevin Winchester wrote:
> > H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Kevin Winchester wrote:
> >>> My first time building and booting the mm branch of x86.git was pretty
> >>> successful.  The only error I noticed was the following in my dmesg:
> >>>
> >>>  hwclock[622] general protection ip:804b226 sp:bff43e30 error:0
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure exactly how to debug this.  I could bisect, but there seems
> >>> to be some useful debug information in there, so there might be
> >>> something better to try first.
> >>>
> >> That's a userspace IP; it implies the userspace hwclock binary did 
> >> something bad, or the kernel didn't permit it to do something it should 
> >> have.  The best thing to do would probably to strace hwclock and see 
> >> what it did when it died.
> >>
> > 
> > Unfortunately, but the time I can get a chance to run hwclock, the
> > problem seems to have fixed itself.  I tried booting into single user
> > mode, but `/etc/init.d/hwclock.sh restart` succeeds once I have my prompt.
> > 
> 
> The other thing you can do is to download the debug information and 
> source code for hwclock from your particular distro, and find out 
> exactly what operation inside the hwclock binary is triggering the segfault.
> 
> The only other option is to bisect.
> 

Bisect says...

4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b is first bad commit
commit 4b5ea240a0c05ff90c4959fd91f0caec7b9bef1b
Author: mboton@...il.com <mboton@...il.com>
Date:   Wed Jan 9 13:31:11 2008 +0100

    x86: ioport_{32|64}.c unification
    
    ioport_{32|64}.c unification.
    
    This patch unifies the code from the ioport_32.c and ioport_64.c files.
    
    Tested and working fine with i386 and x86_64 kernels.
    
    Signed-off-by: Miguel Botón <mboton@...il.com>
    Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
    Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

I'll take a look at the unification and see if I can see anything obvious.

-- 
Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/