linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.29-rc3: BUG: scheduling while atomic: udevd/917/0x10000100

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:27:45 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc3: BUG: scheduling while atomic: udevd/917/0x10000100


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > There's a fourth possibility:
> > 
> >  - Given that it's udevd that does it - maybe we leaked a softirq preempt
> >    count in some rare sysfs file, and it did not get discovered until the
> >    next innocent piece of kernel code preempted?
> > 
> > But i thought lockdep would already warn if we exited a syscall with locks
> > held or with a preempt count elevated - Peter?
> 
> From a quick look it only checks task->lockdep_depth, in lockdep_sys_exit().

That could be broadened then i guess - there's never a good excuse for exiting a 
syscall with an elevated preempt count.

	Ingo
--
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/