linux-kernel - Re: next: suspicious RCU usage message since commit 'rcu: Remove superfluous versions of rcu_read_lock_sched

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 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:	Sat, 14 May 2016 08:42:46 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: next: suspicious RCU usage message since commit 'rcu: Remove
 superfluous versions of rcu_read_lock_sched_held()'

On 04/25/2016 01:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 01:25:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:12:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:26:41PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> On 04/24/2016 10:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:37:25PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/24/2016 10:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 04:56:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>
>>> [ . . . ]
>>>
>>>>>>>> After making the same change in _pwrdm_state_switch(), the traceback is gone
>>>>>>> >from my tests (beagle, beagle-xm, and overo-tobi).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very good!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (And yes, you normally find these one at a time...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you going to submit a formal patch ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can, but please feel free to send mine along with yours, if you wish.
>>>>>
>>>> I think it would be best if you send a single patch which fixes both calls.
>>>
>>> Like this one?
>>>
>>> If so, could you please run it to make sure that it actually fixes the
>>> problem?  And if it does, would you be willing to give me a Tested-by?
>>>
>> It does. Tested-by: inline below.
>
> Got it, thank you!
>
> If the ARM guys are willing to take this, it might hit the next merge
> window, or perhaps they will take it as an exception.  If I push it
> up my usual route, it will be a bit later.
>
> I just now sent it out, so hopefully they will grab it.  ;-)
>
The problem is still seen in next-20160513, so it looks like the patch was not accepted.

I recently learned that arm has a special way of submitting patches. See
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ for details. If I understand correctly,
you'll have to send the patch to patches@....linux.org.uk, and it has to be formatted
correctly (eg no "[PATCH]" in the subject line, and some other information added).
I never tried it myself, so I don't really know how exactly it works.

Guenter