linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.14.25-rt22 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel BUG at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!

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]

Date:	Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:49:06 +0100
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>,
	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.14.25-rt22 1/2] rtmutex Real-Time Linux: Fixing kernel
 BUG at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:997!

On 03/09/2015 05:36 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> BTW, I'm going to start with 3.18-rt1 and see what's been added to the
> other -rt updates. If there's something I need that was added to
> 3.18-rt1 can you let me know. That is, if it wasn't marked with a
> stable-rt tag. My scripts will find those.

I tried to create new patch files for new things and mark them stable
where possible.
I didn't mark the "simple-work" (a workqueue based on swait to avoid a
new kernel thread for each of those things where we need to schedule a
workqueue or something like that from atomic context, like MCE) with cc
stable.

The patch where I reverted this timer thingy is
  Revert-timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch

and it was due to hrtimer beeing broken on 3.18 and has no stable tag.

I'm not sure about the multi-queue block stuff (*-mq-* in the queue).
You might want take a look. I updated a few patches because I managed
to create deadlocks. I'm not sure if it was possible deadlock in v3.14
and I simply didn't trigger if the code changed and it become possible.
I remember that the multi queue block code entered v3.12 but was unused
and started with v3.14 it gained a user.

> 
> -- Steve

Sebastian
--
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/