linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #11569] Don't complain about disabled irqs when the system has paniced

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: <200810080244.06958.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 8 Oct 2008 02:44:06 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #11569] Don't complain about disabled irqs when the system has paniced

On Monday 06 October 2008 17:02, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 07:32:54PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.26.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
> > (either way).
> >
> >
> > Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11569
> > Subject		: Don't complain about disabled irqs when the system has paniced
> > Submitter	: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
> > Date		: 2008-09-02 13:49 (33 days old)
> > References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122036356127282&w=4
>
> The problem is actually worse than this description suggests. I updated
> the bugzilla entry now.
>
> The new smp_call_function() that is called from panic is quite unsuitable
> for this task:
> - It allocates memory (not a good idea in panic0
> - It complains about interrupt off
> - This whole thing breaks at least machine checks

Why doesn't it use something like nmi_shootdown_cpus on panic rather than
the (I guess less reliable and longer latency) smp_send_stop?
--
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/