linux-kernel - Re: arm64: segfaults on next-20170602 with LTP tests

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]

Message-ID: <20170602152440.GQ6371@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2017 16:24:41 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     punit.agrawal@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, steve.capper@....com
Subject: Re: arm64: segfaults on next-20170602 with LTP tests

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 05:42:04PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 03:37:51PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:19:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Hi Yury,
> > > 
> > > [adding Steve and Punit]
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 02:11:51PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > I see that latest and yesterday's linux-next segfaults with tests pth_str01,
> > > > pth_str03, rwtest04. Rwtest04 hangs sometimes. Crashes are not always
> > > > reproducible. About week ago everything was fine. Kernel log and config file
> > > > are attached. The testing is performed on qemu.
> > > 
> > > It's weird that these haven't cropped up in our nightly tests, especially
> > > given that defconfig is very similar to the one you're using. That said,
> > > I see huge pmds cropping up in the traces below and there have been some
> > > recent changes from Punit and Steve in that area, in particular things
> > > like 55f379263bcc ("mm, gup: ensure real head page is ref-counted when using
> > > hugepages").
> > > 
> > > Are you in a position to bisect this, or is it too fiddly to reproduce?
> 
> I have bisected the bug to exactly this patch. If I revert it, the
> pth_str01/03 are passed.

Thanks for doing that: I had my suspicion ;) I can also reproduce the
failure locally on my Juno.

Punit -- please can you investigate this? Otherwise I think we have to
revert this for now and bring it back after some better testing.

Will