linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19-rc3: known unfixed regressions (v3)

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: <20061030175449.GP1941@mellanox.co.il>
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:54:49 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>
To:	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Martin Lorenz <martin@...enz.eu.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	len.brown@...el.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...l.org,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3: known unfixed regressions (v3)

Quoting r. Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>:
> Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3: known unfixed regressions (v3)
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> The code is related to bd_claim_by_disk which is called when
> >> device-mapper or md tries to mark the underlying devices
> >> for exclusive use and creates symlinks from/to the devices
> >> in sysfs. The patch added error handlings which weren't in
> >> the original code.
> >>
> >> I have no idea how it affects ACPI event handling.
> > 
> > It's a mystery. Probably exposes a bug somewhere?
> > 
> >> Are you using dm and/or md on your machine?
> > 
> > The .config is attached to bugzilla.
> 
> OK, I found you disabled CONFIG_MD, which means neither
> dm.ko nor md.ko was built.
> Do you have any out-of-tree kernel modules which call either
> bd_claim_by_kobject or bd_claim_by_disk?

No, I don't have any out-of-tree modules.

> If you aren't using either of them, I'm afraid reverting
> the patch doesn't really solve your problem because the patched
> code is called only from them.

I agree this could be just papering over some issue.
The test results (of both git-bisect and reverting the patch) seem to be pretty
consistent so far though. Keep me posted if you rework the patch.

> >> Have you seen any unusual kernel messages or symptoms regarding
> >> dm/md before the ACPI problem occurs?
> > 
> > I haven't.
> 
> Thanks,

-- 
MST
-
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/