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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:26:10 +1000 From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> To: Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> Subject: Re: [linux-next][DLPAR CPU][Oops] Bad kernel stack pointer Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 21:42 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Dynamic CPU remove operation resulted in Kernel Panic on today's >> > next-20170915 kernel. >> > >> > Machine Type: Power 7 PowerVM LPAR >> > Kernel : 4.13.0-next-20170915 >> > config : attached >> > test: DLPAR CPU remove >> > >> > >> > dmesg logs: >> > ---------- >> > cpu 37 (hwid 37) Ready to die... >> > cpu 38 (hwid 38) Ready to die... >> > cpu 39 (hwid 39) >> > ******* RTAS CReady to die... >> > ALL BUFFER CORRUPTION ******* >> >> Cool. Does that come from RTAS itself? I have never seen that happen >> before. > > Not sure, the var logs does not have any messages captured. This is > first time we hit this type of issue. Yeah it is from RTAS: # lsprop /proc/device-tree/rtas/linux,rtas-base /proc/device-tree/rtas/linux,rtas-base 1eca0000 (516554752) # lsprop /proc/device-tree/rtas/rtas-size /proc/device-tree/rtas/rtas-size 01360000 (20316160) # dd if=/dev/mem bs=4096 skip=126112 count=4960 of=rtas.bin # strings rtas.bin | grep "RTAS CALL BUFFER" ******* RTAS CALL BUFFER CORRUPTION ******* So we were doing an RTAS call and RTAS itself detected that the call buffer was corrupted. I'm not sure how it detects that, but something is definitely screwed up. >> Is this easily reproducible? > > I am unable to reproduce it again. I will keep an eye on our CI runs for > few more runs. OK thanks. cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists