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: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:14:50 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Subject: Re: Crashes in perf_event_ctx_lock_nested On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:32:00PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > That means we can have the following situation: > > lock(watchdog_mutex); > lockup_detector_reconfigure(); > cpus_read_lock(); > stop(); > park() > update(); > start(); > unpark() > cpus_read_unlock(); thread runs() > cleanup(); > unlock(watchdog_mutex); > Isn't there also a where hardlockup_detector_perf_init() creates an event to 'probe' stuff, and then hardlockup_detector_perf_enable() _again_ creates the event?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists