linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for December 11

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:	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:50:34 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 11



On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
>
> Almost a month later, the warning is still there, and now also in Linus' git.
> Am I the only one who sees it?

Possibly. But that may be because most people don't have DEBUG_PREEMPT.

> [    0.004150] WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:4435 sub_preempt_count+0xae/0xc0()
> [    0.004247] Hardware name: HP Compaq nx7300 (GB848ES#ACB)
> [    0.004342] Modules linked in:
> [    0.004477] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.28-06859-gede6f5a #179
> [    0.004575] Call Trace:
> [    0.004672]  [<c012fbe6>] warn_slowpath+0x86/0xa0
> [    0.004770]  [<c014e99b>] ? tick_check_oneshot_change+0x4b/0x100
> [    0.004868]  [<c046dc00>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x10/0x30
> [    0.004963]  [<c047045e>] sub_preempt_count+0xae/0xc0
> [    0.005060]  [<c0134787>] _local_bh_enable+0x27/0xa0

Hmm. _local_bh_enable() would make the preempt_count go negative or fall 
below 1 (with kernel lock held).

> [    0.005155]  [<c0134ac7>] __do_softirq+0xf7/0x150
> [    0.005250]  [<c01349d0>] ? __do_softirq+0x0/0x150
> [    0.005345]  <IRQ>  [<c014ec2e>] ? tick_nohz_update_jiffies+0xe/0x50
> [    0.005488]  [<c013494f>] ? irq_exit+0x7f/0x90
> [    0.005584]  [<c0104f23>] ? do_IRQ+0xa3/0x120
> [    0.005678]  [<c01038a7>] ? common_interrupt+0x27/0x2c
> [    0.005773]  [<c013007b>] ? try_acquire_console_sem+0x1b/0x30
> [    0.005872]  [<c05f7378>] ? check_bugs+0xb8/0xe0
> [    0.005967]  [<c05ef98a>] ? start_kernel+0x25a/0x2f0

.. and it happens early on, when we take an interrupt in check_bugs.

Are we ready to enable interrupts there? Maybe the page fault we took (on 
purpose) enabled interrupts and we now take the irq much too early.

Or maybe the initial kernel lock didn't set preempt_count to 1.

Ingo, any ideas?

		Linus
--
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/