linux-kernel - Re: [tip:core/locking] locking: Check spinlock_t/rwlock

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:	Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:45:55 +0100
From:	Dave <kilroyd@...glemail.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kilroyd@...glemail.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] locking: Check spinlock_t/rwlock_t argument
 type on non-SMP builds too

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * tip-bot for David Kilroy <kilroyd@...glemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Commit-ID:  02626aa5ecc03f94585164b97bedabe15302e3c3
>> Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/02626aa5ecc03f94585164b97bedabe15302e3c3
>> Author:     David Kilroy <kilroyd@...glemail.com>
>> AuthorDate: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:11:35 +0100
>> Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>> CommitDate: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:59:29 +0200
>>
>> locking: Check spinlock_t/rwlock_t argument type on non-SMP builds too
> 
> -tip testing found UP crashes and i bisected it down to:
> 
>  02626aa5ecc03f94585164b97bedabe15302e3c3 is first bad commit
>  commit 02626aa5ecc03f94585164b97bedabe15302e3c3
>  Author: David Kilroy <kilroyd@...glemail.com>
>  Date:   Wed Jul 22 19:11:35 2009 +0100
> 
>     locking: Check spinlock_t/rwlock_t argument type on non-SMP builds too
> 
> the crash looks like this:
> 
> [   55.257999] ip[3699]: segfault at 31108c6d80 ip 00000031108c6d80 sp 00007fff4aa183d8 error 14
> 
> sometimes it's just a spontaneous reboot with no log message.


Crap. Looking really carefully:

+static inline int _spin_trylock_bh(spinlock_t *lock)
+{ __LOCK(lock); return 1; }

Should have been:

+static inline int _spin_trylock_bh(spinlock_t *lock)
+{ __LOCK_BH(lock); return 1; }

I can't say if that's definitely causing your issue, but it's certainly
wrong. I'll go through it all again, and send a v3 of the patch.


Dave.
--
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/