linux-kernel - Re: vmalloc_sync_all(), 64bit kernel, patches 9c48f1c629ecfa114850c03f875c6691003214de, a79e53d85683c6dd9f99c90511028adc2043031f

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:11:28 -0800
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Prasad Koya <prasad.koya@...il.com>
Cc:	dzickus@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: vmalloc_sync_all(), 64bit kernel, patches 9c48f1c629ecfa114850c03f875c6691003214de, a79e53d85683c6dd9f99c90511028adc2043031f

Prasad Koya <prasad.koya@...il.com> writes:

> Hi
>
> Before going into crashkernel, nmi_shootdown_cpus() calls
> register_die_notifier(), which calls vmalloc_sync_all(). I'm seeing
> lockup in sync_global_pgds() (init_64.c). From 3.2 and up,
> register_die_notifier() is replaced with register_nmi_handler() (patch
> 9c48f1c629ecfa114850c03f875c6691003214de), which doesn't call
> vmalloc_sync_all(). Is it ok to skip vmalloc_sync_all() in this path?

Yes it's ok for this case. vmalloc_sync_all is only needed when the
notifier is in freshly loaded module code.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/