linux-kernel - Re: [Bisected] Regression: Hang on boot in schedule_timeout

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: <5d6222a80807280759x5b2511c5t1743ff2a63046429@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:59:52 -0300
From:	"Glauber Costa" <glommer@...il.com>
To:	"Glauber Costa" <gcosta@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Drake" <zappacky.lists@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bisected] Regression: Hang on boot in schedule_timeout_interruptible during ACPI init on SMP

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Andrew Drake wrote:
>> I just discovered; the nolapic_timer parameter causes the problem to go
>> away entirely. It doesn't seem to have any nasty side effects, so I'm
>> content to use it. Looking at the dmesg logs, however, I notice that the
>> "last-good" kernel doesn't even try to use the LAPIC timer, but the
>> "first-bad" does. I wasn't able to track down any discernible reason.
> fine, but if you can still help us on this, it would be awesome ;-)
>
> Actually, there is another nasty bug that depends, at least by a first
> impression, on the lapic timer. I'm planning to save a time today to
> look further on your problem.
>>
>> On a side note, that's the first I've ever heard/seen of that parameter,
>> I tried it because I noticed the problems started when the LAPIC timer
>> was successfully set up. I doubt the average user would notice this (you
>> can't even tell unless you pass apic=debug), so I doubt many others would
>> discover this fix/workaround.
>>
>> The question remains, though, why did it go from "don't try" to "try"?
>
> Probably because the order of initialization of smp entities changed a
> bit during this series. Probably the lapic timer is now initialized a
> little bit earlier, before we have the chance to mark it as bad.
>
> If you can send me at least your dmesgs and cpuinfo, it would be really really
> awesome.

Just saw you've already done it.

Will look through it.

many thanks
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>



-- 
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/