linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for December 11

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: <f19298770901071110vad914c1w364b5973b35c4c16@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:10:18 +0300
From:	"Alexey Zaytsev" <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 11

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 21:47, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> And last time I bisected, it pointed to:
>>
>> commit 7317d7b87edb41a9135e30be1ec3f7ef817c53dd
>> Author: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
>> Date:   Tue Sep 30 20:50:27 2008 +1000
>>
>>    sched: improve preempt debugging
>>
>>
>>    This patch helped me out with a problem I recently had....
>>
>>    Basically, when the kernel lock is held, then preempt_count
>> underflow does not
>>    get detected until it is released which may be a long time (and arbitrarily,
>>    eg at different points it may be rescheduled). If the bkl is released at
>>    schedule, the resulting output is actually fairly cryptic...
>>
>>    With any other lock that elevates preempt_count, it is illegal to schedule
>>    under it (which would get found pretty quickly). bkl allows scheduling with
>>    preempt_count elevated, which makes underflows hard to debug.
>>
>>    Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>>
>> so at least a dumb bisection won't do here.
>
> ah, sorry for being a slow starter, i missed that bit - merge window
> attention span troubles ...
>
> I think the kernel_locked() check added here is plain buggy against IRQ
> contexts: we drop the BKL spinlock and reduce current->kernel_depth
> non-atomically.
>
> So kernel_locked() can become detached from the preempt_count().
>
> Nick, can you think of any better way of still saving this debug check, or
> should we revert it?
>
> Although it seems a bit weird how consistently you seem to be able to
> trigger it - as this seems to be a narrow race. Is there an IRQ storm
> there perhaps, or something widens things up for Qemu to inject an IRQ
> right there?

I'm not sure about the qemu case, but at least on my laptop it happens
somewhere along

arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c:
 92         printk(KERN_INFO "Checking 'hlt' instruction... ");
 93         if (!boot_cpu_data.hlt_works_ok) {
 94                 printk("disabled\n");
 95                 return;
 96         }
 97         halt();
 98         halt();
 99         halt();
100         halt();
101         printk("OK.\n");

where an interrupt has to come in order to get the cpu from hlt, so
there is no surprise that I'm seeing this on every single boot. ;)
--
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/