linux-kernel - Re: [bisected] 3c8ba0d61d04ced9f8d9ff93977995a9e4e96e91 oopses on s390

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]

Date:   Fri, 6 Apr 2018 20:10:57 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Martin Uecker <Martin.Uecker@....uni-goettingen.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] 3c8ba0d61d04ced9f8d9ff93977995a9e4e96e91 oopses on
 s390

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> Today's kernel oopsed on s390. Bisect points to:
> >> 3c8ba0d61d04 ("kernel.h: Retain constant expression output for max()/min()")
> >>
> >> [    1.898277] dasd-eckd 0.0.3304: DASD with 4 KB/block, 21636720 KB total size, 48 KB/track, compatible disk layout
> >> [    1.898308] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> [    1.898310] kernel BUG at block/bio.c:1798!
> >
> > Well that's extremely bad. :(
> >
> >> Bisect log and config attached. I'll look at min/max users in the affected
> >> areas later today.
> >
> > Seems like a comparison of objdump output with/without the patch may
> > be needed. And why is this s390 only? Ugh.
> 
> I did a objdump diff with your .config and it's rather large -- mostly
> seems to be register swaps, so it's not easy to browse.

Yes, I'm looking at that too.

> BTW, what version of gcc did you use? I built using:

gcc version 7.2.0 (GCC)