linux-kernel - Re: rcu: BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#3, trinity-child19/5970

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:	Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:36:53 +0200
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rcu: BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#3, trinity-child19/5970

On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 07:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, so it looks like the context-switch-time call into preemptible RCU
> > needs to be outside of the runqueue-lock critical section.  One way
> > to do this is be reverting 616c310e (Move PREEMPT_RCU preemption to
> > switch_to() invocation).  Sasha, could you please try this out?
> 
> Hmmmm...  Here is a patch for this reversion on top of -rcu with
> conflicts resolved. 

It looks like how I've resolved it.

Just for clarity, the only rcu related patch I have on top of -next is
this reversal one. I've dropped anything we tested before.

Looks like its running fine for a bit now (~10 min). I'll ping if
anything changes, but on the other tests it has usually failed at this
point.

--
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/