linux-kernel - Re: soft lockup detector & virtualisation

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, 16 Feb 2012 17:39:38 -0800
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>
Subject: Re: soft lockup detector & virtualisation

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
> Lately I've noticed quite a few soft lockup bugs being reported.
> In many of them, they're coming from inside virtual guests.
>
> Is the softlockup detector fundamentally broken in this situation ?
>
> If the host doesn't schedule the guest for whatever reason,
> or the user suspends the VM and resumes it later ?
>
> Here's the most recent example:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=563767
>
> In many of these, the code where it's "stuck" isn't anything
> special, which is why I think the guest just hasn't had a
> timeslice in 185 seconds.
>
> Is there some way we can perhaps detect we're running virtualised,
> and disable the detector automatically ?

I think Eric's work (See "Add check for suspended vm in softlockup
detector" sent out today) tries to address this issue.

thanks
-john
--
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/