linux-kernel - Re: lockdep oddity

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]

Message-ID: <20060906072043.GC6898@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:20:43 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
	Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: lockdep oddity

> > Found this will debugging some random memory corruptions that happen 
> > when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and CONFIG_PROFILE_LIKELY are both on. 
> > Switching both off or having only one of them on seems to work.
> 
> previously i had some weirdnesses with PROFILE_LIKELY too, they were 
> caused by it generating cross-calls from within lockdep. Do the 
> corruptions go away if you remove all likely() and unlikely() markings 
> from kernel/lockdep.c?

No, unfortunately that doesn't help. I'm also wondering why the profile
patch contains this:

+       if (ret)
+               likeliness->count[1]++;
+       else
+               likeliness->count[0]++;

This isn't smp safe. Is that on purpose or a bug?
-
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/