linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.19-rc5

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: <20150201201915.GA31945@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 1 Feb 2015 21:19:15 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc5

On 02/01, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > And personally I agree. sched_annotate_sleep() looks self-documented, it
> > is clear that it is used to suppress the warning.
>
> But *that's not the problem*.
>
> If it was just silencing the warning, things would be fine.
>
> But it is actively screwing task state up, and actually changing
> behavior of the kernel (in a very subtle part of the code too), and
> doing so in ways that potentially introduce WORSE BUGS THAN THE WHOLE
> DAMN DEBUG SUPPORT WAS SUPPOSED TO FIND IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I understand, that is why I suggested to change it.

> I like your patch, but I'm going to combine it with mine that actually
> fixes a real bug,

Sure, I agree.

> because what you don't see in that patch of yours:
> ...
>
>
> is that the whole "if (WARN_ONCE()" remains horribly buggy, because of
> the line that follows it:
>
>                 __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>
> in the if-statement.

Ah. I just forgot to mention that this change should be rediffed on top
of your patch, of course it is not enough.

> I'll just combine it with yours to avoid extra noise in this area, and
> mark you as the author, fixing *both* of the incorrect state changes.
> Ok?

Please combine them, but don't mark me as an author, I do not want to
take the false credits ;)

Oleg.

--
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/