| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1360156888.2621.42.camel@gandalf.local.home> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:21:28 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Subject: Re: Question on lockdep and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 22:23 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > On 02/05/2013 08:36 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 19:30 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > > >> It's huge, so here's a link: > >> > >> http://www.candelatech.com/~greearb/debug.tgz > >> > > > > The trace shows that __netif_receive_skb() is grabbing an > > rcu_read_lock() but never releasing it. But I don't see any possible way > > that can be true in the code. > > > > Can you apply the following patch and run the trace again. I'd like to > > see if the code is going in the path I expect it is. > > I'll look at this in detail tomorrow. I have a few patches in dev.c code, maybe > I merged something badly.... I wish you told me that in the beginning. That you modified the core code. In that case I would have asked to see your modifications before anything else. I'm 99% sure that the bug is in your modifications. -- Steve -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists