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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705231008250.19822@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2007 10:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@...oo.com.au>
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

On Wed, 23 May 2007, Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote:

> > 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)

Ahh... At least we are getting to the original problem.
 
> 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

So lockdep has issues with slab merging? If locks are tracking within 
slabs then I imagine that lockdep gets confused if we put them together.

> 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?)

Yes.

-
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/