linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <19f34abd0808251114p7b03b21oeb865b1706e095ef@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:14:52 +0200
From:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Thing is, the code *isn't* in an interrupt.  Something got screwed up.
>
> What can happen is that some code has a lock imbalance or a
> preempt_disable imbalance and it does preempt_disable() so many times
> that the counter overflows eight bits and starts to increment the
> softirq counter, then the hardirq counter, then in_interrupt() starts
> incorrectly returning true then blam.

Hm.

Config doesn't even have CONFIG_PREEMPT, so preempt_disable() should be a no-op.


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/