linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa

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: <5460E339.5020308@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:09:29 -0500
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign()

On 11/10/2014 11:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:48:27PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> [  829.539183] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#10, trinity-c594/11067
>> [  829.539203]  lock: 0xffff880631dd6b80, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: trinity-c594/11067, .owner_cpu: 13
> 
> Ooh, look at that. CPU#10 vs .owner_cpu: 13 on the _same_ task.
> 
> One of those again :/

Hum. I missed that one.

Hold on, but the magic here is fine and the owner pointer is fine, why would just the owner cpu
be wrong?


Thanks,
Sasha

--
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/