linux-kernel - Re: mm: slub: gpf in deactivate

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: <20140325175634.GC7519@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:56:34 -0700
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mm: slub: gpf in deactivate_slab

On Tue 25-03-14 12:06:36, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > You are right. The function even does VM_BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled())...
> > Unfortunatelly we do not seem to have an _irq alternative of the bit
> > spinlock.
> > Not sure what to do about it. Christoph?
> >
> > Btw. it seems to go way back to 3.1 (1d07171c5e58e).
> 
> Well there is a preempt_enable() (bit_spin_lock) and a preempt_disable()
> bit_spin_unlock() within a piece of code where irqs are disabled.
> 
> Is that a problem? Has been there for a long time.

It is because preempt_enable calls __preempt_schedule when the preempt
count drops down to 0. You would need to call preempt_disable before you
disable interrupts or use an irq safe bit spin unlock which doesn't
enabled preemption unconditionally.
 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/