linux-kernel - Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() during suspend with 2.6.25-rc8

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: <20080410094554.GA10321@ucw.cz>
Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:45:54 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() during suspend with 2.6.25-rc8

On Tue 2008-04-08 00:33:48, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > The mce resume is a sysdev.
> > > sysdevs were always supposed to run completely with interrupts off. If they 
> > > don't anymore that's some kind of higher level resume code bug which you need 
> > > to fix there, not hack around in the low level code.
> > They are executed with interrupts disabled, on one CPU.
> 
> So, any idea why mce_resume() -> mce_init() -> debug_smp_processor_id() 
> triggers the warning? Apparently preempt_count is zero, irqs_disabled() 
> returns false, and cpumask_of_cpu() is not equal to current->cpus_allowed.

We are single-threaded because we 'unplugged' all the other cpus...
but I'm not sure the BUG() code realises that...

> So there clearly is a bug somewhere.
> 
> > > Obviously turning on preemption anywhere around the machine check is
> > > fatal because it touches CPU state and if you reschedule you could
> > > switch to another CPU and change or access the wrong CPU's state.
> > FWIW, at the point when sysdevs are resumed we are single-threaded.
> 
> Is that really relevant here? We still could be switched over to another 
> CPU, and that would break things.

There are no other CPUs.

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/