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:	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:17:42 +0100
From:	Bjørn Mork <>
To:	Don Zickus <>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,,
	Norbert Warmuth <>,
	Joseph Salisbury <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3] watchdog: Fix disable/enable regression

Don Zickus <> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 08:51:31PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> commit 8d451690 ("watchdog: Fix CPU hotplug regression") cause
>> an oops or hard lockup when doing
>>  echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
>>  echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
>> and the kernel is booted with nmi_watchdog=1 (default)
>> Running laptop-mode-tools and disconnecting/connecting AC power
>> will cause this to trigger, making it a common failure scenario
>> on laptops.
>> Instead of bailing out of watchdog_disable() when !watchdog_enabled
>> we can initialize the hrtimer regardless of watchdog_enabled status.
>> This makes it safe to call watchdog_disable() in the nmi_watchdog=0
>> case, without the negative effect on the enabled => disabled =>
>> enabled case.
>> All these tests pass with this patch:
>> - nmi_watchdog=1
>>   echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
>>   echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
>> - nmi_watchdog=0
>>   echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
>> - nmi_watchdog=0
>>   echo mem > /sys/power/state
> What about the opposite cases?  
> nmi_watchdog=1
> echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online

I don't see why not. But verifying it would be nice.  I thought that it
would be a simple thing to test using qemu-kvm, but it seems that the
CPU hotplugging support there isn't quite ready. The guest just dies
with "Assertion `bus->allow_hotplug' failed."

I'll go digging for alternatives, but if anyone else could verify this
then I'd appreciate it.

> Are we going to leak memory by re-initing hrtimer?  Or is that caught
> somewhere?

There are no allocations in hrtimer_init() AFAICS? It just initializes
the preallocated hrtimer struct.

> Other than that, the patch seems reasonable to me.  Basically just forcing
> the init of hrtimer so there is something to cancel on the disable side.
> Then again, I don't fully understand the original problem.

I believe the original problem was calling hrtimer_cancel on an
uninitialized hrtimer.  That is likely to blow up here:

static inline
void unlock_hrtimer_base(const struct hrtimer *timer, unsigned long *flags)
        raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timer->base->cpu_base->lock, *flags);

Note that the lock_hrtimer_base() function protects access to
timer->base with a NULL test.  That should probably be done in unlock as
well, for symmetry?  But this is another issue and not at all urgent.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists