linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a44ae5cd0609031115r3a0d10den8a86a79cd6c5756a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:15:59 -0700
From:	"Miles Lane" <miles.lane@...il.com>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!

On 9/3/06, Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry Andrew.  I don't see clues here to help me target the report to
> > > a maintainer. I hope this helps.
> > >
> > > BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
> > > turning off the locking correctness validator.
> >
> > Miles, could you try the patch below? (Andrew: if this solves Miles'
> > problem then i think this is v2.6.18 material too. [The other
> > possibility would be some permanent stack-trace entries leak, in which
> > case the patch will not help. If that happens then we'll have to debug
> > this some more.])
> >
> >         Ingo
> >
> > ---------------->
> > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > Subject: lockdep: double the number of stack-trace entries
> >
> > Miles Lane reported the "BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!" message,
> > which means that during normal use his system produced enough lockdep
> > events so that the 128-thousand entries stack-trace array got exhausted.
> > Double the size of the array.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > ---
> >  kernel/lockdep_internals.h |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> > +++ linux/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
> >   * Stack-trace: tightly packed array of stack backtrace
> >   * addresses. Protected by the hash_lock.
> >   */
> > -#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        131072UL
> > +#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        262144UL
> >
> >  extern struct list_head all_lock_classes;
> >
> >
>
> Ingo, there seemed to be a difference between the file you editted and
>  the one in Andrew's tree.  I remade you patch so it applies cleanly.
> I'll test and let you know.  One word of caution, I only hit the
> problem once and I'm not sure how to trigger the condition.  I'll do
> my best.
>
> Thanks,
>         Miles
>
> --- kernel/lockdep_internals.h~ 2006-09-03 09:59:29.000000000 -0700
> +++ kernel/lockdep_internals.h  2006-09-03 10:00:55.000000000 -0700
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>   * Stack-trace: tightly packed array of stack backtrace
>   * addresses. Protected by the hash_lock.
>   */
> -#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        131072UL
> +#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        262144UL
>
>  extern struct list_head all_lock_classes;
>

By the way, after making this change "make all install modules
modules_install" didn't seem to notice that the file had been
modified.  I backed up .config, ran "make mrproper", etc.  Is this a
build dependency checker bug?

Thanks,
        Miles

-- 
VGER BF report: H 4.35163e-06
-
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/