linux-kernel - Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?

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: <CA+5PVA7tvmqsF4=n84jnB3YOM50pq8wkQN9S8EL06FnGD-DoYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:39:23 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use
 freezable blocking call")?

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
<rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
>>
>> 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on
>> the two working i686s I still have lying around I ran into issues on
>> resuming from suspend. Reverting 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792
>> ("select: use freezable blocking call") resolves those issues.
>>
>> 1) Resuming from suspend on i686 on (release candidates of) v3.11 and
>> later triggers issues like:
>>      traps: systemd[1] general protection ip:b738e490 sp:bf882fc0 error:0
>> in libc-2.16.so[b731c000+1b0000]
>>
>> and
>>      traps: rtkit-daemon[552] general protection ip:804d6e5 sp:b6cb32f0
>> error:0 in rtkit-daemon[8048000+d000]
>>
>> Once I hit the systemd error I can only get out of the mess that the
>> system is at that point by power cycling it.
>>
>> 2) I bisected that issue to commit
>> 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking
>> call"). The, rather impressive, bisect log is pasted at the end of this
>> message. It took 23 builds to pinpoint this issue in the v3.10..v3.11
>> range! Sadly, I have no clue why that commit triggers this issue.
>>
>> 3) Reverting that commit on top of v3.12-rc7 gets me a system that
>> resumes without issues. (That revert needed one trivial context change.
>> Note that I haven't actually tried v3.12-rc7 plain. But v3.12-rc6 and
>> earlier also had this issue, so I'm sure the revert did the trick for
>> v3.12-rc7.)
>>
>> 4) Should this commit be reverted? Or is there a better fix?
>
>
> In short, yes, it should.
>
> I've already queued up a revert of something very similar and I'm going to
> revert this one too.

To be clear, that's queued for 3.12 which is releasing really soon
now.  Is that correct?

josh
--
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/