linux-kernel - Re: BUG-lockdep and freeze (was: Arrr! Linux 2.6.18)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060930212524.GA6332@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:25:24 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: BUG-lockdep and freeze (was: Arrr! Linux 2.6.18)


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> wrote:

> It could - and _should_ dammit! - do some basic sanity tests like "is 
> the thing even in the same stack page"? But nooo... It seems 
> _designed_ to be fragile and broken.
>
> Here's a simple test: if the next stack-slot isn't on the same page, 
> the unwind information is bogus unless you had the IRQ stack-switch 
> signature there. Does the code do that? No. It just assumes that 
> unwind information is complete and perfect.

fully agreed - i have pointed out areas of conceptual fragility to Jan 
early on:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/2/59

(but AFAICS i got no reply to that mail - i missed that in the lockdep 
flurry.)

	Ingo
-
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/