linux-kernel - Re: [PROBLEM] 2.6.22-rc2 panics on x86-64 with slub

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:	Tue, 22 May 2007 21:26:40 +1000 (EST)
From:	Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@...oo.com.au>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@...te.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] 2.6.22-rc2 panics on x86-64 with slub

--- Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
[...]
> yes - PROVE_LOCKING reactivates spinlocks even on UP. At least this 
> suggests that you'd have gotten the hang even with maxcpus=1 - i.e. the 
> spinlock corruption is not caused by some genuine SMP race.
 
You're right on the mark there: even with maxcpus=1 or nosmp (or with both),
with PROVE_LOCKING it hung with slub. I didn't mention that so not to confuse
the matter, but you rightly figured that out too.

Thanks



      ___________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia?  Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html

-
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/