linux-kernel - Re: sched: serial port lockdep warning when offlining CPUs

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: <20170928111325.GA30818@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2017 20:13:26 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
        "sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com" <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: sched: serial port lockdep warning when offlining CPUs

On (09/28/17 11:04), Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:38:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 02:19:46AM -0700, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I seem to be hitting the following warning when offlining CPUs on the
> >> latest -next kernel:
> >>
> >> [289683102.607076] Unregister pv shared memory for cpu 8
> >> [289683102.622922] select_fallback_rq: 3 callbacks suppressed
> >
> >This is because you hit a printk() from the scheduler, that's known
> >broken (along with the rest of printk).
> >
> >You forgot to actually include that printk() though I suspect it reads
> >like:
> >
> >  "process %d (%s) no longer affine to cpu%d\n"
> >
> >Now that uses printk_deferred() which _should_ work lots better, but
> >clearly the printk() stuff went wobbly again.
> 
> Hm, so is this an actual possible lockup, or just a false positive?

a possible one.

printk() used to lockdep_off()/lockdep_on() in "dangerous places"
before, but not anymore.

	-ss