linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.14-rt1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140430111100.72a7a71b@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:11:00 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.14-rt1

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:54:46 +0200
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 10:33 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: 
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:19:19 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm testing it now. But could you please post them as regular patches.
> > > They were attachments to this thread, and were not something that stood
> > > out.
> > 
> > With your two patches, it still crashes exactly the same way. I
> > probably should remove my debug just in case, but I think this box has
> > another problem with it.
> 
> You killed this hunk of hotplug-light-get-online-cpus.patch
> 
> @@ -333,7 +449,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int
>                 /* CPU didn't die: tell everyone.  Can't complain. */
>                 smpboot_unpark_threads(cpu);
>                 cpu_notify_nofail(CPU_DOWN_FAILED | mod, hcpu);
> -               goto out_release;
> +               goto out_cancel;

I added this, but it only happens on the failed case, which I don't
think is an issue with what I'm dealing with.

>         }
>         BUG_ON(cpu_online(cpu));
> 
> ..and fixed this too?
> 
> Another little bug.  This hunk of patches/stomp-machine-raw-lock.patch
> should be while (atomic_read(&done.nr_todo)) 
> 
> @@ -647,7 +671,7 @@ int stop_machine_from_inactive_cpu(int (
>         ret = multi_cpu_stop(&msdata);
> 
>         /* Busy wait for completion. */
> -       while (!completion_done(&done.completion))
> +       while (!atomic_read(&done.nr_todo))

I don't see this in the code. That is, there is no "completion_done()"
in stop_machine_from_inactive_cpu(). It is already an atomic_read().

-- Steve

>                 cpu_relax();
> 
>         mutex_unlock(&stop_cpus_mutex);

--
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/