linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4

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: <20150205152201.49d55905@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:22:01 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
Cc:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 21:07:27 +0100
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com> wrote:

> > Is this Paul's version of the patch or mine? If it is just mine, do you
> > know if Paul's version triggers this too?
> >
> 
> This one which entered Pauls rcu-next tree.
> 
> [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/commit/?h=rcu/next&id=2b27cf7317d8a99a50bead9faccd54b46b6f0c41

That's mine.

It looks like the condition will be tested before it calls and rcu
code. Which is why I was confused that it still gave a splat. Paul
posted a patch before this that did the check outside the trace point.

This one:

 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142310961217650&w=2

> 
> >> ( I did not build from scratch but re-invoking make "updated" the
> >> files touched by Steven's patch, see attached build-log. )
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the call-trace remains when doing an offlining of cpu1.
> >> ( It's good to see it's reproducible. )
> >
> > Was the tracepoint enabled? Or was there some other rcu call that
> > triggered this. Or would cpu_online(smp_processor_id()) return true at
> > this point?
> >
> 
> Thanks Steve for jumping into this one!
> 
> Good point.
> I looked at my kernel-config (which I already sent :-)).
> 
> Do I need to enable...?
> 
> # CONFIG_RCU_TRACE is not set
> 
> ...or even more?
>

What I meant by the tracepoint being enabled, was not that it was
configured in (I'm assuming it was), but that you started tracing?

 echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/enable

or

 echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/tlb/tlb_flushed/enable

-- Steve
--
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/