linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: move early boot local IRQ enable/disable status to init/main.c

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]

Message-ID: <1295523492.28776.165.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:38:12 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: move early boot local IRQ enable/disable
 status to init/main.c

On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 12:26 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:23:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 12:11 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello, guys.
> > > 
> > > These two patches remove both warnings.  The first warning was
> > > completely spurious.  The second lockdep one was triggered by
> > > on_each_cpu() enabling local IRQ too early.
> > > 
> > > I don't think percpu allocator itself malfunctioned.  There was no
> > > allocation failure.  It whines when percpu allocation fails but didn't
> > > in the log.  Other than calling vfree() early triggering the above
> > > condition, it worked okay.
> > > 
> > > So, it's either the early enabling of local IRQ by on_each_cpu()
> > > breaking something in the IRQ subsystem or something different.  Ingo,
> > > can you please see whether these two patches cure the panic too?
> > 
> > Why not use something like: system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING ?
> 
> Cuz, it's finer grained than that.  We can add a SYSTEM_* flag but I
> wasn't sure whether that would be just creating more noise.  If we try
> to consolidate these things, we probably should consider
> oops_in_progress too.  It probably is a good idea but let's first fix
> the problem at hand.

Right, no problem with that, I was just wondering why you'd add an extra
variable instead of using the system states.
--
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/