| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:26:27 +1100
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: dlstevens@...ibm.com (David Stevens)
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, greearb@...delatech.com,
jarkao2@...pl, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)
David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> You're right, I don't know whether it'll fix the problem Ben saw
> or not, but it looks like the original code can do a receive before the
> in_device is fully initialized, and that, of course, is bad.
> If the device for ip_rcv() is not the same one we were
> initializing when the receive interrupted, then the patch should have
> no effect either way -- I don't think it'll hide other problems.
> If it's hard to reproduce (which I guess is true), then you're
> right, no soft lockup doesn't really tell us if it's fixed or not.
Actually I missed your point that the multicast locks aren't even
initialised at that point. So this does explain the soft lock-up
and therefore your patch is clearly the correct solution.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists