[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <491C69B5.100@colorfullife.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:53:57 +0100
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, cboulte@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SYSVIPC - Fix the ipc structures initialization
Nadia Derbey wrote:
> That's what the patch I sent at the beginning of this thread
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/28/177) fixes: the ipc structure is not
> completely initialized before being inserted in the tree.
>
> The patched kernel has been running for 4 days on my victim without any
> problem, but Clement is still facing a problem (that comes later).
>
> I think this patch should be included anyways, because ipc structures
> initialization is not correct the way it is done today.
>
>
Definitively: Your patch belongs into 2.6.28 and the next 2.6.27.
> I'm still reviewing the code to see what else could be wrong.
>
I started looking into the idr code: perhaps idr returns a stale entry?
A race somewhere in the RCU code.
I.e. the new bug is not corruption due to access before
spin_lock_init(), but due to access after kfree()?
Clement: Could you send us an ipcs output from before the test?
Do you have any sysv msg queues on your system?
And: Do you use PREEMPT, do you use PREEMPT_RCU?
If there are no message queues around, then every msgget()/IPC_RMID will
create a new idr layer/tear the layer down again.
--
Manfred
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists