linux-kernel - Re: fs/dcache.c - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s! [systemd-udevd:1667]

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]

Date:	Wed, 28 May 2014 21:25:05 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fs/dcache.c - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s!
 [systemd-udevd:1667]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 01:02:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Anyway, one reason I looked at this is that most of the threads in
> Mika's NMI watchdog traces were stuck on _raw_spin_lock() in the whole
> d_walk() thing, and I had a *really* hard time convincing myself that
> this was all safe without the RCU lock. I'm wondering if Mika perhaps
> has CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU set, which means that spinlocks (or the
> rename_lock sequence lock) do not end up being RCU-safe points.

d_walk() covers its arse with ->d_lock (and it wants the starting point
to be pinned, obviously).  So AFAICS RCU is not a problem.
--
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/