linux-kernel - Re: Panic when cpu hot-remove

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:40:13 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	Joerg Roedeljoro <joro@...tes.org>
CC:	范冬冬 <fandd@...pur.com>,
	刘长生 <liuchangsheng@...pur.com>,
	iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"jiang.liu@...el.com" <jiang.liu@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	闫晓峰 <yanxiaofeng@...pur.com>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Panic when cpu hot-remove

On 2015/6/17 22:36, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 13:52 +0200, Joerg Roedeljoro wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:42:49AM +0000, 范冬冬 wrote:
>>> Hi maintainer,
>>>
>>> We found a problem that a panic happen when cpu was hot-removed. We also trace the problem according to the calltrace information.
>>> An endless loop happen because value head is not equal to value tail forever in the function qi_check_fault( ).
>>> The location code is as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>> do {
>>>         if (qi->desc_status[head] == QI_IN_USE)
>>>         qi->desc_status[head] = QI_ABORT;
>>>         head = (head - 2 + QI_LENGTH) % QI_LENGTH;
>>>     } while (head != tail);
>>
>> Hmm, this code interates only over every second QI descriptor, and tail
>> probably points to a descriptor that is not iterated over.
>>
>> Jiang, can you please have a look?
> 
> I think that part is normal, the way we use the queue is to always
> submit a work operation followed by a wait operation so that we can
> determine the work operation is complete.  That's done via
> qi_submit_sync().  We have had spurious reports of the queue getting
> impossibly out of sync though.  I saw one that was somehow linked to the
> I/O AT DMA engine.  Roland Dreier saw something similar[1].  I'm not
> sure if they're related to this, but maybe worth comparing.  Thanks,
Thanks, Alex and Joerg!

Hi Dongdong,
	Could you please help to give some instructions about how to
reproduce this issue? I will try to reproduce it if possible.
Thanks!
Gerry

> 
> Alex
> 
> [1] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/iommu/2015-January/011502.html
> 
> --
> 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/
> 
--
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/