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:	Thu, 7 May 2015 07:05:56 +0000
From:	"Oza (Pawandeep) Oza" <oza@...adcom.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
CC:	pawandeep oza <oza.contri.linux.kernel@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	malayasen rout <malayasen.rout@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17

: )

Well, I am not sure, if problem was communicated clearly from my side.
Let me attempt it again.

If  variable tick_do_timer_cpu = 0. Things are fine.
If it is some other value say for e.g. 1, 2 or 3 then core0 does not increment jiffies.  (but say if it is set to tick_do_timer_cpu=1, then core1 will increment jiffies)

If cpu1 ,2 and 3 are sent smp_send_stop and as a result of that cpu1, 2 and 3 will be stopped.

Now only cpu0 is alive, cpu0 should increment jiffies upon each time tick.
For that tick_do_timer_cpu should be set to 0.

Which is not happening.

Regards,
-Oza


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:umgwanakikbuti@...il.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17

On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:58 +0000, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> Yes.
> But dying kernel doesn’t mean it CAN NOT INCREMENT jiffies.
> do_timer should do the job until kernel takes its last breathe and more precisely CPU0 take its last breathe by halting itself as its last instruction.

Feel free to add a redundant timer subsystem lest we BUG() in there, and
whatever else you need to guarantee a perfect orderly death for your
box.  I prefer live boxen, would make that BUG() go away.

	-Mike

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ