linux-kernel - Re: Crashes with 874bbfe600a6 in 3.18.25

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:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 20:05:57 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@...system.cz>
Subject: Re: Crashes with 874bbfe600a6 in 3.18.25

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:46:11PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > So I think 874bbfe600a6 is really bogus. It should be reverted. We
> > > > already have a proper fix for vmstat 176bed1de5bf ("vmstat: explicitly
> > > > schedule per-cpu work on the CPU we need it to run on"). This which
> > > > should be used for the stable trees as a replacement.
> > > 
> > > It's not bogus.  We can't flip a property that has been guaranteed
> > > without any provision for verification.  Why do you think vmstat blow
> > > up in the first place?  vmstat would be the canary case as it runs
> > > frequently on all systems.  It's exactly the sign that we can't break
> > > this guarantee willy-nilly.
> > 
> > You're in complete failure denial mode once again.
> 
> Well, you're in an unnecessary escalation mode as usual.  Was the
> attitude really necessary?  Chill out and read the thread again.
> Michal is saying the dwork->cpu assignment was bogus and I was
> refuting that.

Right, but at the same time you could have admitted, that the current state is
buggy and needs a sanity check in unbound_pwq_by_node().
 
> Michal brought it up here but there's a different thread where Mike
> reported NUMA_NO_NODE issue and I already posted the fix.
> 
>  http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160203185425.GK14091@mtj.duckdns.org

5 minute ago w/o cc'ing the people who participated in that discussion.

Thanks,

	tglx