linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context

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: <CALCETrVN0DyQw+7ArX1zrKJRqSso2py6xH2k7QCS_b6J9a=8Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:33:06 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote:
>> On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>> [  543.999079] Call Trace:
>>>>>> [  543.999079] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4259)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] atomic_notifier_call_chain (include/linux/rcupdate.h:892 kernel/notifier.c:182 kernel/notifier.c:193)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:192)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] notify_die (kernel/notifier.c:538)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:538)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? debug_smp_processor_id (lib/smp_processor_id.c:57)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] do_debug (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:652)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2609)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? do_int3 (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:610)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2554 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2601)
>>>>>> [  543.999079] debug (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:1310)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how to read this stack trace.  Are we in do_int3,
>>>>> do_debug, or both?  I didn't change do_debug at all.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like we're in do_debug. do_int3 is only on the stack but not
>>>> part of the current frame if I can trust the '?' ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's possible that an int3 happened and I did something wrong on
>>> return that caused a subsequent do_debug to screw up, but I don't see
>>> how my patch would have caused that.
>>>
>>> Were there any earlier log messages?
>>
>> Nope, nothing odd before or after.
>
> Trinity just survived for a decent amount of time for me with my
> patches, other than a bunch of apparently expected OOM kills.  I have
> no idea how to tell trinity how much memory to use.
>

A longer trinity run on a larger VM survived (still with some OOM
kills, but no taint) with these patches.  I suspect that it's a
regression somewhere else in the RCU changes.  I have
CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, so I should have seen the failure if it was there,
I think.

--Andy
--
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/