linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.25-rc5-mm1] BUG: spinlock bad magic early during boot

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: <1205444890.25188.9.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net>
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:48:10 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.25-rc5-mm1] BUG: spinlock bad magic early during boot


On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 17:04 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: 
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:54:43 +0100
> Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc> wrote:
> 
> > Am 11.03.2008 09:14 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.25-rc5/2.6.25-rc5-mm1/
> > 
> > This still complains during startup:
> > 
> > <6>[    0.063442] Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK.
> > <0>[    0.068233] BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, swapper/0
> > <0>[    0.068996]  lock: c2c19380, .magic: 00000000, .owner: swapper/0, .owner_cpu: 0
> > <4>[    0.069227] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc5-mm1-testing #1
> > <4>[    0.069369]  [spin_bug+124/135] spin_bug+0x7c/0x87
> > <4>[    0.069563]  [_raw_spin_unlock+25/113] _raw_spin_unlock+0x19/0x71
> > <4>[    0.069752]  [_spin_unlock+29/60] _spin_unlock+0x1d/0x3c
> > <4>[    0.069941]  [mnt_want_write+98/136] mnt_want_write+0x62/0x88
> > <4>[    0.070131]  [sys_mkdirat+134/214] sys_mkdirat+0x86/0xd6
> > <4>[    0.070322]  [clean_path+22/74] ? clean_path+0x16/0x4a
> > <4>[    0.070558]  [kfree+216/236] ? kfree+0xd8/0xec
> > <4>[    0.070793]  [sys_mkdir+16/18] sys_mkdir+0x10/0x12
> > <4>[    0.070995]  [do_name+274/435] do_name+0x112/0x1b3
> > <4>[    0.071184]  [write_buffer+29/44] write_buffer+0x1d/0x2c
> > <4>[    0.071371]  [flush_window+100/179] flush_window+0x64/0xb3
> > <4>[    0.071558]  [unpack_to_rootfs+1580/2233] unpack_to_rootfs+0x62c/0x8b9
> > <4>[    0.071747]  [populate_rootfs+32/265] populate_rootfs+0x20/0x109
> > <4>[    0.071995]  [alternative_instructions+339/344] ? alternative_instructions+0x153/0x158
> > <4>[    0.072235]  [start_kernel+835/853] start_kernel+0x343/0x355
> > <4>[    0.072422]  [i386_start_kernel+8/10] i386_start_kernel+0x8/0xa
> > <4>[    0.072610]  =======================
> > <6>[    0.072808] Unpacking initramfs... done
> > 
> > System comes up fine, though. Not sure whom to CC.
> 
> Dave, methinks.
> 
> > Machine's a dual-core Pentium D running a 32 bit kernel.
> > Let me know if you want me to provide more information or test anything.

I'm really confused by this one.  It looks to me like the initcalls got
all out of whack in their ordering.  There's no way in hell that the
populate_rootfs() call should be happening right next to cpu
initialization:

> > <6>[    0.063442] Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK.

If you can send me your vmlinux (not vmlinuz), I'll see how the
initcalls are laid out in it.  What distro and compiler are you on?

-- Dave

--
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/