linux-kernel - Re: Analyzed/Solved: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow

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, 29 Apr 2009 02:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	efault@....de, tigran aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Analyzed/Solved: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow


----- Original Message ----

> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> To: Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; efault@....de; tigran aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:28:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Analyzed/Solved: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow
> 
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Martin Knoblauch 
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> >  OK, I just found the reason for both intel-ucode and tg3 failures. Apparently 
> between 2.6.28 and 2.6.29 the mount of sysfs has subtely changed from:
> > 
> > /sys /sys sysfs rw 0 0
> > 
> > to:
> > 
> > none /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0
> 
> I assume that you're referring to the contents of /proc/mounts?
> 
> >  The "none" breaks the RHEL-4 provided hotplug script "firmware.agent" when it 
> tries to parse the mount point for "/sys". As a result, the firmware loading is 
> never properly finished and the driver(s) just timeout on the value  in 
> /sys/class/firmware/timeout. Bingo. Simple fix in user-pace possible - cool down 
> Martin :-)
> > 
> > Questions remains: was this intentional? It breaks existing userspace and 
> should therefore be considered a regression - right? On the other hand, it will 
> never be a problem for RHEL-4/5 kernels, unless the change in 2.6.29 gets 
> backported. Any ideas?
> 
> afaik that was unintentional and was probably a mistake.
> 
> I wonder how we did that.

 Actually, what breaks the RHEL-4.3 script is not the "none", but the duplicate lines in /proc/mounts that I reported earlier in the "regression" thread.

[root@...dm52]# grep sysfs /proc/mounts
none /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0
/sys /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0

 One of them likely comes from the respective line in /etc/fstab, but where does the second one come from?


Cheers
Martin

--
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/