linux-kernel - Re: Random panic in load

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: <53CFC8C8.3070304@daenzer.net>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:38:00 +0900
From:	Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc

On 23.07.2014 23:24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:11:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:45:46AM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>> Doesn't the picture showing the captured panic reveal more information.
>>>> Haven't seen it myself, I just saw Peter's reply to your email
>>>
>>> Its a general protection fault from somewhere in load_balance(), I send
>>> you the picture.
>>>
>>> It would help to get addr2line of the RIP I suppose.
>>>
>>> Michel provided a config, so lemme go try and build that, maybe my gcc
>>> will generate similar code to his and the function offset is enough
>>> clue.
>>
>> So the code section says the faulting instruction is:
>>
>>   f3 a5
>>
>> followed by:
>>
>>   48 89 c7 85 50 ff ff 
>>
>> or so.
>>
>> My compiled code is 'different', the function is shorter, but there's a
>> f3 a5 somewhere not too far short of +d7 at +a8. I have (objdump -SD):
>>
>>     35a8:       f3 a5                   rep movsl %ds:(%rsi),%es:(%rdi)
>>
>>         for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_cpus(group), env->cpus) {
>>                 unsigned long capacity, capacity_factor, wl;
>>                 enum fbq_type rt;
>>
>>                 rq = cpu_rq(i);
>>     35aa:       48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00    mov    $0x0,%rcx
>>
>> And that's the only part that could possibly match.
>>
>> That looks like the start of find_busiest_queue(). I'm not entirely sure
>> what the rep movsl is operating on, lemme try and figure that out.
> 
> Ah, this appears to be load_balance()'s:
> 
> 	cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_active_mask);

Right, according to addr2line it's the memcpy in bitmap_copy().


> Which totally doesn't make sense, both src and dst are static storage.
> Dst is the most interesting since its per-cpu storage, but still.
> 
> No way either of those should generate a #GP. Puzzled.

Could it be the memcpy length being off or something like that?


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer            |                  http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast          |                Mesa and X developer
--
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/