linux-kernel - Re: boot hang: async vs. kexec

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, 29 Jan 2009 16:28:00 -0600
From:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"arjan@...radead.org" <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: boot hang: async vs. kexec

On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 13:15 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> I (try to) do daily build/boot testing.  The newly built kernel
> is booted via kexec.  This was working until sometime between
> 2.6.28 and 2.6.29-rc1, so I bisected it.*
> 
> git bisect blames this commit:
> 
> 96777fe7b042e5a5d0fe5fb861fcd6cd80ef9634 is first bad commit
> commit 96777fe7b042e5a5d0fe5fb861fcd6cd80ef9634
> Author: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date:   Thu Jan 8 09:46:31 2009 -0600
> 
>     async: Don't call async_synchronize_full_special() while holding sb_lock
>     
>     sync_filesystems() shouldn't be calling async_synchronize_full_special
>     while holding a spinlock.  The second while loop in that function is the
>     right place for this anyway.
> 
> 
> The new/kexec-loaded kernel hangs during initcalls.  The last one that
> I can see (via netconsole, might miss a few of the very last lines) is:
> 
> calling  net_ns_init+0x0/0x14d @ 1
> net_namespace: 1008 bytes
> initcall net_ns_init+0x0/0x14d returned 0 after 0 usecs
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas/suggestions?

I'm not sure about any limitations of git bisect, but it seems unlikely
to me that sync_filesystems() would be getting called this early.  Are
any filesystems even mounted at this point?

Does reverting that commit fix the problem?  (I would be surprised, but
stranger things have happened.)

> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> *caveat: This was all done with the "don't use gcc 4.1.[01]
> because it miscompiles __weak" patch reverted.  Could that
> be an issue/problem here?  (I'm using gcc 4.1.1.)

I have no idea.

Shaggy
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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/