linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.23 WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:139 local_bh

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: <20071123191524.GA6273@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date:	Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:15:24 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.23 WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:139 local_bh_enable()

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:59:43PM -0600, Matt Mackall (mpm@...enic.com) wrote:
> So I'd be surprised if that was a problem. But I can imagine having
> problems for skbs without destructors which run into one of these in
> __kfree_skb:
> 
> dst_release
> secpath_put
> nf_conntrack_put
> nf_conntrack_put_reasm
> nf_bridge_put
> 
> ..some or all of which assume a softirq context.

bridging is ok, others require softirq context.
I've sent a patch (the last one should be ok) to guard against xfrm and
connection tracking.

> > No matter if we are under memory pressure or whatever - it is not
> > allowed - a lot of skbs are supposed to be freed in softirq context,
> > that is why dev_kfree_skb_any() exists.
> 
> Some skbs we definitely -can- free in irq context. The only ones we
> care about are the ones generated by netpoll. If there's a reason you
> think netpoll's own skbs can't be freed, please describe it.

Only some and to distinguish them we can not use destructor - if it is
set (even empty function) it will fire an alarm.

> > I think we can drop skbs _without_ destructor from the queue though in
> > that conditions given that we actually need only one.
> 
> Huh?

Don't mind - friday...
I posted a patch (third one should be ok) to fix this issue.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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/