netdev - Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

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:	Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:50:14 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>, greearb@...delatech.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!  (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 07:29:30PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:03:51AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > 
> > I doubt this is the right solution. It certainly
> > could fix this particular situation but my main
> > point was packets shouldn't get into kernel
> > receive queues with skb->dev not IFF_UP.
> 
> I think you misunderstood.  The device certainly is IFF_UP.  What
> happens is that the multicast spin locks are set up too late:

Could you explain? I can see some inet_rtm_newaddr
interrupted. For me it could be e.g.:

after
vconfig add eth0 9

ip addr add dev eth0.9 ...

before
ip link set dev eth0.9 up

Jarek P.
-
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