linux-kernel - Re: [PROBLEM] WARNING: at kernel/exit.c:910 do

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101121192953.GA4495@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 20:29:53 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] WARNING: at kernel/exit.c:910 do_exit

On 11/21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I do wonder if we should just flag a thread as "busy oopsing" before
> we call "do_exit(), so that _if_ we do a recursive oops we
>
>  (a) don't print it out (except just a one-liner to say "recursively
> oopsed in %pS" or something)
>  (b) don't try to clean up with do_exit (because that's likely just
> going to oops again or run out of stack etc)
>
> That might have left us with a more visible original oops. Maybe the
> register contents at that point could have given us any ideas (ie
> things like the slab poisoning memory patterns or whatever).

+inf ;)

I thought about this many times. To me, the major offender is
__schedule_bug(). It is quite useful by itself, but every bug with
spinlock held triggers it.

Oleg.

--
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/