linux-kernel - Re: rtmutex assert failure (was [Patch] restore the RCU callback...)

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:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700
From:	Bill Huey (hui) <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
To:	Robert Crocombe <rcrocomb@...il.com>
Cc:	Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Bill Huey (hui)" <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
Subject: Re: rtmutex assert failure (was [Patch] restore the RCU callback...)


[...resend...]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:33:59AM -0700, Robert Crocombe wrote:
> On 8/26/06, hui Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org> wrote:
> >The function __put_task_struct() should never show up a stack trace
> >EVER. That function has been rename under all things
> >CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
> >under my addendum patches. That's why I'm starting to think it's your
> >build environment or you're miss applying the patches.
>
> but is it used?
...
> +void fastcall __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +       struct list_head *head;
> +
> +       head = &get_cpu_var(delayed_put_task_struct_list);
> +       list_add_tail(&task->delayed_drop, head);
> +
> +       _wake_cpu_desched_task();
> +
> +       put_cpu_var(delayed_put_task_struct_list);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
>
> So I think you're mistaken.  Patch is applied like this:

The patch is applied correctly.

This is what I'm having a problem with in your stack trace...

I was unclear in explain that __put_task_struct() should never
appear with free_task() in a stack trace as you can clearly see
from the implementation. All it's suppose to do is wake a thread,
so "how?" you're getting those things simultaneously in the stack
trace is completely baffling to me. Could you double check to see
if it's booting the right kernel ? maybe make sure that's calling
that version of the function with printks or something ?

bill

-
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/