linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at mm/slqb.c:1411!

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: <2f11576a0905150821m5c602ef7g996766ae5d7f0141@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 May 2009 00:21:42 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/slqb.c:1411!

2009/5/15 Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>:
> Hi Motohiro-san,
>
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:37 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:42:37 +0900 (JST)
>> > > > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hmm. I don't know slqb well.
>> > > > So, It's just my guess.
>> > > >
>> > > > We surely increase l->nr_partial in  __slab_alloc_page.
>> > > > In between l->nr_partial++ and call __cache_list_get_page, Who is decrease l->nr_partial again.
>> > > > After all, __cache_list_get_page return NULL and hit the VM_BUG_ON.
>> > > >
>> > > > Comment said :
>> > > >
>> > > >         /* Protects nr_partial, nr_slabs, and partial */
>> > > >   spinlock_t    page_lock;
>> > > >
>> > > > As comment is right, We have to hold the l->page_lock ?
>> > >
>> > > Makes sense. Nick? Motohiro-san, can you try this patch please?
>> >
>> > This issue is very rarely. please give me one night.
>
> On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:38 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> -ENOTREPRODUCED
>>
>> I guess your patch is right fix. thanks!
>
> Thank you so much for testing!
>
> Nick seems to have gone silent for the past few days so I went ahead and
> merged the patch.
>
> Did you have CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING enabled, btw? I think I got the lock
> order correct but I don't have a NUMA machine to test it with here.

my x86_64 with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING don't output any warnings.

thanks.
--
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/