linux-kernel - Re: Possible regression? 2.6.26-rc1: T61s failure after suspend/resume

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: <5d6222a80805090926v5baeb9ebw6b4dda98548a2933@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 May 2008 13:26:23 -0300
From:	"Glauber Costa" <glommer@...il.com>
To:	"Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	"Glauber Costa" <gcosta@...hat.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Carlos R. Mafra" <crmafra2@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible regression? 2.6.26-rc1: T61s failure after suspend/resume

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008, Glauber Costa wrote:
>  >
>  > I can't reproduce it neither, and looking at the code over and over
>  > again, see no obvious point for the breakage. I'll try to reproduce it
>  > myself,
>  > to see if I can spot something. But correct me if I'm wrong, this is
>  > all 64-bit machines, right?
>  >
>  > I'm stuck with mostly 32-bit hardware, but will give it a try anyway.
>
>  The machine is 64-bit capable (Core2 Duo), but the kernels I'm running
>  for this are 32-bit, so I doubt that the 64-bitability is relevant.
>  I'd love to see what happens with a 64-bit kernel, but I never get
>  back from suspend with it (and that's not a recent regression).
>  Carlos is also seeing this with a 32-bit kernel (on P4 Xeon with HT).
>
>  Please don't take my git bisection result too seriously: that's where
>  it led when I fudged things around enough, and treated blank screens
>  as manifestations of the problem, which very likely they're not
>  (there's some other bug which makes it very variable how quickly
>  I resume).  And also, I wasn't checking how many cpus came up each
>  time: I wouldn't be surprised if at some points in your series only
>  one would come up, which would then look like a "good" point to me.
>
This is very unlikely. Exactly because I knew problems were likely to
arise in such a delicate thing, I was
extremely careful to make it not an issue. But yeah, ultimately, it can happen.


-- 
Glauber Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
--
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/