linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:690 __lock

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:	Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:53:29 +0300
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:690 __lock_acquire+0x168/0x164b()

On (10/20/11 20:39), Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 03:32:32PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > Could you try to revert f59de8992aa6 ("lockdep: Clear whole lockdep_map on 
> > initialization") with this patch and see if it helps?  Thanks.
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
> > --- a/kernel/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
> > @@ -2874,7 +2874,10 @@ static int mark_lock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
> >  void lockdep_init_map(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
> >  		      struct lock_class_key *key, int subclass)
> >  {
> > -	memset(lock, 0, sizeof(*lock));
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < NR_LOCKDEP_CACHING_CLASSES; i++)
> > +		lock->class_cache[i] = NULL;
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_STAT
> >  	lock->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> 
> FWIW,
> 
> the box has been running here with f59de8992aa6 reverted for a couple of
> days now and no sign of the warning. I'll keep watching it but it looks
> ok so far, so David, you could've nailed it.
> 

Hello,
Well, the same with me. My laptop has been running with reverted f59de8992aa6 without any
problems so far. Yet, I'm not sure I understand how memset() and loop could
produce different results.

commit in question (f59de8992aa6dc85e81aadc26b0f69e17809721d) has been merge on
Jul 14 15:19:09 2011 +0200, so, Borislav, you probably should have seen it
not only on 3.1-rc5, 3.1-rc6,..., but even on 3.0.


	Sergey
--
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/