linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] Fix a dead loop in async_synchronize

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: <alpine.DEB.2.01.1207161130080.26923@trent.utfs.org>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>
To:	Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full()

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 at 17:56, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:50 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Morton
> > <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client.
> > >
> > > More seriously, it does not apply to linux-next due to some fairly
> > > significant changes which have been sitting in Dan's tree since May.
> > > What's going on?
> > >
> > 
> > Those changes missed the 3.5 merge window, but now that they have
> > Arjan's ack they should head upstream via James for 3.6.  Right now
> > they are on his pending [1] branch.
> > 
> > As far as the comment:
> > 
> > > It seems async_synchronize_full() wants to synchronize all entries in
> > > all running lists(domains), so maybe we could just check the entry_count
> > > to know whether all works are finished.
> > 
> > ...at first glance this is what the new async patches achieve.
> > async_synchronize_full should now sync work across all domains, but if
> > you can reproduce this bug it would be nice to confirm that the
> > pending changes fix it.
> > 
> 
> I have tested your pending patches, they fix the problem here.
> 
> But with ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE added for the domains defined on the
> stack, I think we lack a function that could wait for all the works in
> all domains (however, maybe actually we don't need such an interface).
> 
> Also, I think it's not good to exclude them from
> async_synchronize_full() just because they are defined on the stack. 

Is this still scheduled to go into 3.5? I'm asking because -rc7 has been 
released and does not contain this fix. W/o this fix, my powerpc system 
won't boot[0] :-\

Thanks,
Christian.

[0] http://nerdbynature.de/bits/3.5.0-rc5/soft_lockup/
-- 
BOFH excuse #28:

CPU radiator broken
--
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/