| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:46:57 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> Cc: Stanislav Meduna <stano@...una.org>, "linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: BUG: spinlock trylock failure on UP, i.MX28 3.12.15-rt25 [ added Peter ] On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:54:39 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote: > this is, erm, harmless. We grab the timer lock via trylock in hardirq > context. If the lock is already taken then we fail to get it we go for > plan B. According to lockdep a trylock should not fail on UP. This is > true in general except for this timer case. I was thinking abour > disabling this lockdep check… trylock not failing on UP, can that be an issue? I mean, if a hardirq does a trylock to see if it can grab a lock that is not protected by disabling irqs, and will go to plan B if it fails, on UP, it will always get it. But the issue is still there. That would mean that a hardirq could have preempted a critical section and doing a trylock here would succeed when it really should have failed. -- 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