linux-kernel - Re: [rcu] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000000da

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: <20140913002005.GA9550@localhost>
Date:	Sat, 13 Sep 2014 08:20:05 +0800
From:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Shan Wei <davidshan@...cent.com>,
	Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>, Su Tao <tao.su@...el.com>,
	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bobby.prani@...il.com,
	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [rcu] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
 000000da

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:26:59PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:19:57PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > > So, I am not seeing this failure in my testing, but my best guess is
> > > that the problem is due to the fact that force_quiescent_state() is
> > > sometimes invoked with preemption enabled, which breaks __this_cpu_read()
> > > though perhaps with very low probability.  The common-case call (from
> > > __call_rcu_core()) -does- have preemption disabled, in fact, it has
> > > interrupts disabled.
> > 
> > How could __this_cpu_read() break in a way that would make a difference to
> > the code? There was no disabling/enabling of preemption before the patch
> > and there is nothing like that after the patch. If there was a race then
> > it still exists. The modification certainly cannot create a race.
> 
> Excellent question.  Yet Fengguang's tests show breakage.
> 
> Fengguang, any possibility of a false positive here?

Yes, it is possible. I find the first bad commit and its parent
commit's kernels are built in 2 different machines which might
cause subtle changes. I'll redo the bisect.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/