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]

Message-ID: <294534.72400.qm@web52611.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2007 20:18:23 +1000 (EST)
From:	Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@...oo.com.au>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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

--- Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007, Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote:
[...]
> Yup. compile with
> 
> CONFIG_NUMA
> 
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> 
> CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOCS

(All the tests in this email was conducted on top of your patch)

Yup done that. The resulting kernel (without CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y) is quite
stable; passed a few iterations of kernel compile tests successfully.

> and then try to boot without slub_debug.

I guess you mean with CONFIG_SLUB_CONFIG=y? If so, I built another kernel with
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y (plus all of the above) & tested it. It panics by default,
but with slub_nomerge it works just fine (tested under moderate load).

(the panic message produced by CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y was the exact same call
trace as my very first email in this email thread with slightly different
address on a couple of functions, but rest remains the same)

I'm personally very happy that slub works stably without slub debug options,
because that's what I'd run in a production env. Thanks to your patch, slub is
quite stable without the slub debug for me :-)). But it'd to nice to have a
working slub debug for test env., as you'd undoubtedly be aware of, of course
:-). Just my humble opinion.

> If that fails then boot with slub_nomerge

Yup, I had to use slub_nomerge; without that CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y kernel
panics. (I haven't tested the UP case though. I did try nosmp & maxcpus=1, but
they had no effect on the panic. Do you want me to test UP case for
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y without slub_nomerge?)

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/