linux-kernel - Re: sched: BUG in load

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, 18 Feb 2013 21:19:26 -0500
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched: BUG in load_balance

On 02/18/2013 08:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 19:55 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest, running today's -next,
>> I've stumbled on the following spew.
>>
>> I've cc'ed Steven Rostedt since the culprit looks like "sched: Enable
>> interrupts in idle_balance()".
> 
> You're correct. Interrupts are ok but softirqs must still be disabled.
> 
> The following patch should work.
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> Only compiled tested:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 0fcdbff..a31174c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5222,9 +5222,9 @@ void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
>  	update_rq_runnable_avg(this_rq, 1);
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Drop the rq->lock, but keep preempt disabled.
> +	 * Drop the rq->lock, but keep softirqs disabled.
>  	 */
> -	preempt_disable();
> +	local_bh_disable();
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&this_rq->lock);
>  
>  	update_blocked_averages(this_cpu);
> @@ -5253,7 +5253,7 @@ void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  	raw_spin_lock_irq(&this_rq->lock);
> -	preempt_enable();
> +	local_bh_enable();

I have to admit, I'm slightly confused with the patch: there's a raw_spin_lock_irq()
followed by local_bh_enable(). afaik it's illegal to call local_bh_enable() with
interrupts disabled.


Thanks,
Sasha

--
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/