linux-kernel - Re: next-20090107: WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:4435 sub_preempt

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f19298770901241633l736801f6r760ef54883ca9c87@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:33:07 +0300
From:	Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Laurent Riffard <laurent.riffard@...e.fr>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: next-20090107: WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:4435 sub_preempt_count

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 05:00, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:49:45AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> > One more instance of http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123134586202636&w=2
>> > Added Ingo Molnar to CC.
>>
>> added Nick on Cc:. Nick, it's about:
>>
>> > commit 7317d7b87edb41a9135e30be1ec3f7ef817c53dd
>> > Author: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
>> > Date:   Tue Sep 30 20:50:27 2008 +1000
>> >
>> >    sched: improve preempt debugging
>>
>> causing a seemingly spurious warning.
>
> I don't know how it is spurious... Presumably the sequence _would_ have
> caused preempt count to go negative if the bkl were not held...
>
> __do_softirq does a __local_bh_disable on entry, and it seems like the
> _local_bh_enable on exit is what causes this warning. So something is
> unbalanced somehow. Or is it some weird thing we do in early boot that
> I am missing?
>
> Can you put in some printks around these functions in early boot to
> get an idea of what preempt_count is doing?
>

Hi again.

Finally got to debug this. The preempt count on the first __do_softirq entry
ever is 0, as it is set in irq_ctx_init(). The interrupted swapper
thread happens
to be in the kernel_locked() state at the moment, so the warning.

I don't understand why the softirq preempt count is initialized to 0. Should not
it be SOFTIRQ_OFFSET instead?
--
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/