linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc3-mm1 kernel panic while bootup on powerpc ()

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: <20080305164438.fff7bb7c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:44:38 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:	mikey@...ling.org, kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	willy@...ian.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc3-mm1 kernel panic while bootup on powerpc ()

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:03:31 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> 
> > Yes, we are - it's the semaphore rewrite which is doing this in
> > start_kernel().  It's being discussed.
> > 
> > Enabling interrupts too early on powerpc was discovered to be fatal on
> > powerpc years ago.  It looks like that remains the case.
> 
> Regarding these issues. I could make it non fatal and just WARN_ON,
> provided that I have a way to differentiate legal vs. illegal calls
> to local_irq_enable().

And local_irq_restore() and various other things.

> We already have that function mostly out of
> line in C code due to our lazy irq disabling scheme, so the overhead of
> testing some global kernel state would be minimum here.
> 
> However, I don't see anything around init/main.c:start_kernel() that I
> can use. What do you reckon here we should do ? Add some kind of global
> we set before calling local_irq_enable() ? Or make early_boot_irqs_on()
> do that generically 
> 
> It's currently defined as an empty inline without CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> but we could make it set a flag instead.
> 
> I'm pretty sure other archs have similar problems, especially in the
> embedded world where you are booted with random junk firmwares that may
> leave devices, interrupt controllers etc... in random state, and
> enabling incoming IRQs before the arch code properly initializes the
> main interrupt controller can be fatal. I know at least of an ARM board
> I worked on a while ago that had a similar issues.
> 
> On ppc32, unfortunately, our local_irq_enable/restore are nice inlines
> that whack the appropriate MSR bits directly, thus adding a test for a
> global flag would add some bloat/overhead that I'd like to avoid, at
> least until we decide to also do lazy disabling on those, if ever...

I'd have thought that the way to do this would be to add it to lockdep -
lockdep already has all the infrastructure and code sites to do this.

Set some special flag saying its-ok-to-enable-interrupts-now and test that
in lockdep.

akpm:/usr/src/25> grep LOCKDEP arch/powerpc/Kconfig 
akpm:/usr/src/25> 

losers ;)

Still, doing it for

akpm:/usr/src/25> grep -l LOCKDEP arch/*/Kconfig 
arch/arm/Kconfig
arch/avr32/Kconfig
arch/mips/Kconfig
arch/s390/Kconfig
arch/sh/Kconfig
arch/sparc64/Kconfig
arch/um/Kconfig
arch/x86/Kconfig

should give pretty good coverage.
--
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/