linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.24-rc5 x86 architecture no longer Oopses...

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: <20071221000534.GA5128@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:05:34 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.24-rc5 x86 architecture no longer Oopses...


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:47:59 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > it needs to be found out why the preempt_count suddenly went to zero. Is 
> > task struct corruption out of question?
> 
> Strictly we shouldn't care - we _know_ we've already hit a kernel bug 
> and who knows, perhaps that buggy code did an unbalanced 
> preempt_disable().  So make the oops code more robust.
> 
> otoh, we don't want to be hiding a bug.  What piece of code guarantees 
> that we ender the oops code with preemption disabled?

i looked at the patch you sent - and there the proof was in the sections 
i quoted.

	Ingo
--
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/