linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/2] onlining cpus can break lockdep

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1203626456-3101-1-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:40:54 -0300
From:	Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, glommer@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	pzijlstr@...hat.com, arjan@...radead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] onlining cpus can break lockdep

Hi,

While testing with hotplugging cpus today, I've came across a stack
trace generated by lockdep. The reason for that is that
do_boot_cpu() in smpboot_64.c ends up initializing a struct work_struct
variable in the stack.

These patches fix this by making it static. a per-cpu variable is choosen,
since, to the best of my knowledge, nothing prevents two cpus going up
at the same time, and so a single static c_idle won't do.

I separated it in two patches to better isolate the change. The first patch
just paves the way, by turning access to c_idle into pointer dereferences.
The second one does the real work.

Thanks

--
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/