linux-kernel - Re: [mainline][DLPAR][Oops] OF: ERROR: Bad of_node

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]

Message-ID: <87shfft04j.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2017 21:59:24 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        abdul <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     sachinp <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [mainline][DLPAR][Oops] OF: ERROR: Bad of_node_put() on /cpus

Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On 09/21/2017 02:57 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>> On 09/20/2017 04:39 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>> Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>
>>>> Testing a fix, will report back.
>>>
>>> So, that patch slipped past me. Not only is the parent reference not ours to drop, but
>>> when I went and looked at dlpar_cpu_add() I also noticed that of_node_put() was done on
>>> the parent prior to the call to dlpar_attach_node(). With the addition of "parent" to the
>>> dlpar_attach_node() parameter list dlpar_cpu_add() needs to be fixed up to hold the
>>> "parent" reference until after dlpar_attach_node() returns.
>> 
>> Yep. I wrote the same patch :)
>> 
>> Rob asked me to test it, which I did, but /cpus starts out with an
>> elevated ref count, so you have to do ~30 (on my system) DLPAR removes
>> to hit the bug, which I didn't do.
>
> Yeah, there are a lot of things that grab references to /cpus. So, I had a good idea that
> I needed to loop a few times adding and removing multiple cpus to trigger the issue. Its
> also obvious when using those OF trace points I wrote a while back that refcount for /cpus
> is dropping off uncharacteristically in response to symmetrical adds/removes of cpus. I
> saw your note about getting that patchset resubmitted. I'll try and get that queued back
> up soon.

Thanks, it'd be great to get it in. I applied it from the list and used
it for testing this.

cheers