linux-kernel - Re: Analyzed/Solved/Bisected: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow

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]

Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 22:56:45 +0200
From:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>, efault@....de,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	shemminger@...tta.com, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, matthew@....cx,
	mike.miller@...com
Subject: Re: Analyzed/Solved/Bisected: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 22:31, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 04:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
> Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de> wrote:
>
>>  FWIW, I compiled the CCISS driver into the kernel. This makes the second "/sys" line in /proc/mounts go away, dmesg attached. But does it prove anything? The initialization of the CCISS hardware now happens about 2 seconds earlier in the bootup sequence. Does this hint to a problem with CCISS, or just confirms that the whole issue is really timing dependent? Anyway, I add Mike to CC.
>>
>
> It seems that the PCI change caused timing changes which triggered a
> udev/sysfs/whatever problem, which manifests as the duplicated
> /proc/mounts entry to turn up.
>
> What we don't know (afaik) is why the kernel permitted two entries in
> /proc/mounts.  That might be a bug.
>
> It could be that if dual /proc/mounts problem gets fixed, everything
> works OK - by intent or by accident, the userspace startup scripts may
> then work acceptably.
>
> I think Al asked you a few questions around the behaviour of mount(8)
> and the mount syscall, so we could delve further into why /proc/mounts
> is getting mucked up.  Did you end up running those tests?

I expect the duplicate comes from a left-over mount in initramfs which
isn't a duplicate in the sense of a bug in vfs or mount or anything. I
guess, it is just still mounted in the initial kernel rootfs, below
the root from the disk. It could be that a umount from initramfs did
go wrong because of a changed timing.

Thanks,
Kay
--
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/