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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:32:04 -0500
From:	Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team <kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Using tracing_off() in __schedule_bug()

We're considering using tracing_off() in __schedule_bug() in the
Ubuntu kernel to help us solve "scheduling while atomic" bugs without
needing to compile and install a special kernel to do so. Using the
tracing_off() call enables us to generate smaller function traces when
debugging, and find the bug easier since it should be at the end of
any traces. The patch we are thinking of using can be found at [1].
You can find an overview of how bugs are solved using this approach
there as well.

Are there any thoughts as to the appropriateness of this patch in
Ubuntu kernels? My guess is that this isn't done in the upstream
vanilla kernels because it would be annoying to have a stock kernel
littered with tracing_off() calls if you hit one when you weren't
meaning to. However, we're interested in hearing if there's some
negative consequence we haven't thought of.

Thanks,
Chase Douglas

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/10/310
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ