linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panic with "Exception: 501 " 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:33:00 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panic with "Exception: 501 " on powerpc

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:26:09AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> down() looks OK, but there's still a spin_lock_irq() in __down_common(),
> although I don't know if it makes sense for us to be in __down() at that
> stage.

The spin_lock_irq in __down_common is correct.  We're going to schedule(),
so we spin_unlock_irq() to save us passing the flags into the helper
function.  If we had interrupts disabled on entry, there's an Aieee
for that.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/