linux-kernel - Re: mm: slub: gpf in deactivate

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:	Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:06:36 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
cc:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mm: slub: gpf in deactivate_slab

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:

> You are right. The function even does VM_BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled())...
> Unfortunatelly we do not seem to have an _irq alternative of the bit
> spinlock.
> Not sure what to do about it. Christoph?
>
> Btw. it seems to go way back to 3.1 (1d07171c5e58e).

Well there is a preempt_enable() (bit_spin_lock) and a preempt_disable()
bit_spin_unlock() within a piece of code where irqs are disabled.

Is that a problem? Has been there for a long time.

--
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/