linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:38:39 -0500
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign()

On 11/10/2014 11:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:48:27PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > [  829.539183] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#10, trinity-c594/11067
>> > [  829.539203]  lock: 0xffff880631dd6b80, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: trinity-c594/11067, .owner_cpu: 13
> Ooh, look at that. CPU#10 vs .owner_cpu: 13 on the _same_ task.
> 
> One of those again :/

This actually reproduces pretty easily. The stack trace seems to be different
but the end result is the same as above. Anything we can do to debug it? I'm
really not sure how just the owner_cpu can be different here.


Thanks,
Sasha
--
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/