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  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:	Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:29:01 +0100
From:	Frans Pop <>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <>, Jiri Kosina <>,
	Sven Geggus <>,
	Karol Lewandowski <>,
	Tobias Oetiker <>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	David Miller <>,
	Reinette Chatre <>,
	Kalle Valo <>,
	David Rientjes <>,
	Mohamed Abbas <>,
	Jens Axboe <>,
	"John W. Linville" <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	Stephan von Krawczynski <>,
	Kernel Testers List <>,,,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ONLY-APPLY-IF-STILL-FAILING Revert 373c0a7e, 8aa7e847: Fix congestion_wait() sync/async vs read/write confusion

On Tuesday 27 October 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Oops. no, please no.
> 8aa7e847 is regression fixing commit. this revert indicate the
> regression occur again.
> if we really need to revert it, we need to revert 1faa16d2287 too.
> however, I doubt this commit really cause regression to iwlan. IOW,
> I agree Jens.

This is not intended as a patch for mainline, but just as a test to see if 
it improves things. It may be a regression fix, but it also creates a 
significant change in behavior during swapping in my test case.
If a fix is needed, it will probably by different from this revert.
Please read:

This mail has some data:

> I hope to try reproduce this problem on my test environment. Can anyone
> please explain reproduce way?

Please see my mails in this thread for bug #14141:

You will probably need to read some of them to understand the context of 
the two mails linked above.

The most relevant ones are (all from the same thread; not sure why gmane 
gives such weird links):

> Is special hardware necessary?

Not special hardware, but you may need an encrypted partition and NFS; the 
test may need to be modified according to the amount of memory you have.
I think it should be possible to reproduce the freezes I see while ignoring 
the SKB allocation errors as IMO those are just a symptom, not the cause.
So you should not need wireless.

The severity of the freezes during my test often increases if the test is 
repeated (without rebooting).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists