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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:04:51 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, wanpeng.li@...mail.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, "# .39.x" <stable@...nel.org>, "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: v4.10-rc8 (-rc6) boot regression on Intel desktop, does not boot after cold boots, boots after reboot On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:34:45PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:20:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Frederic Weisbecker > > > <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I haven't followed the discussion but this patch has a known issue which is fixed > > > > with: > > > > 7bdb59f1ad474bd7161adc8f923cdef10f2638d1 > > > > "tick/nohz: Fix possible missing clock reprog after tick soft restart" > > > > > > > > I hope this fixes your issue. > > > > > > No, Pavel saw the problem with rc8 too, which already has that fix. > > > > > > So I think we'll just need to revert that original patch (and that > > > means that we have to revert the commit you point to as well, since > > > that ->next_tick field was added by the original commit). > > > > Aw too bad, but indeed that late we don't have the choice. > > Hint: Look for CPU hotplug interaction of these patches. I bet something > becomes stale when the CPU goes down and does not get reset when it comes > back online. Indeed I should check that. But Pavel is seeing this on boot, where the only hotplug operations that happen are CPU UP without preceding CPU DOWN that may have retained stale values. I think the value of ts->next_tick should be initially 0 for all CPUs. So perhaps that 0 value confuses stuff. But looking at the code I don't see how. It maybe something more subtle.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists