linux-kernel - Re: 4.0.0-rc4: panic in free

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:	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:05:05 -0600
From:	David Ahern <david.ahern@...cle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4.0.0-rc4: panic in free_block

On 3/20/15 10:58 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That said, SLAB is probably also almost unheard of in high-CPU
> configurations, since slub has all the magical unlocked lists etc for
> scalability. So maybe it's a generic SLAB bug, and nobody with lots of
> CPU's is testing SLAB.
>

Evidently, it is a well known problem internally that goes back to at 
least 2.6.39.

To this point I have not paid attention to the allocators. At what point 
is SLUB considered stable for large systems? Is 2.6.39 stable?

As for SLAB it is not clear if this is a sparc only problem. Perhaps the 
config should have a warning? It looks like SLAB is still the default 
for most arch.

DaveM: do you mind if I submit a patch to change the default for sparc 
to SLUB?

Now that the monster is unleashed, off to other problems...

Thanks,
David
--
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/