linux-kernel - Re: NULL pointer in kmem_cache

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: <1203390851.3248.14.camel@ymzhang>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:14:11 +0800
From:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: NULL pointer in kmem_cache_alloc with 2.6.25-rc1

On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 08:52 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:59:18 -0800
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:47:01 +0800 "Zhang, Yanmin"
> > <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Call Trace:
> > >  [<ffffffff805e0024>] ? __alloc_skb+0x31/0x121
> > >  [<ffffffff805dc389>] ? sock_alloc_send_skb+0x77/0x1d2
> > >  [<ffffffff80243897>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e
> > >  [<ffffffff805e12d5>] ? memcpy_fromiovec+0x36/0x66
> > >  [<ffffffff80636ec0>] ? unix_stream_sendmsg+0x165/0x333
> > >  [<ffffffff805d9863>] ? sock_aio_write+0xd1/0xe0
> > >  [<ffffffff80227834>] ? __wake_up_common+0x41/0x74
> > >  [<ffffffff8027d267>] ? do_sync_write+0xc9/0x10c
> > >  [<ffffffff80265fbb>] ? __do_fault+0x382/0x3cd
> > >  [<ffffffff80243897>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e
> > >  [<ffffffff80268840>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x38a/0x70d
> > >  [<ffffffff806afd39>] ? error_exit+0x0/0x51
> > >  [<ffffffff80228008>] ? __dequeue_entity+0x1c/0x32
> > >  [<ffffffff8027d9bb>] ? vfs_write+0xc0/0x136
> > >  [<ffffffff8027dee5>] ? sys_write+0x45/0x6e
> > >  [<ffffffff8020bdcb>] ? system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80
> > 
> > off-topic, but...  Why are all the backtrace decodes here marked as
> > being unreliable?
At least ffffffff80279948 is correct. The register values and ip address looks like
matching the disassembled codes.

> 
> probably because the stack is a tad confused, so the back tracer doesn't see
> even a single good stack frame.
> 
> Is CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER on?
No.

With 2.6.25-rc2, 3 x86-64 machines hit the same issue.

-yanmin


--
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/