linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 75/95] random: set up the NUMA crng instances after the CRNG is fully initialized

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:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:46:58 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     "\"\\\"Theodore Y. Ts\'o\\\"\"" <tytso@....edu>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, ben@...adent.org.uk,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        jannh@...gle.com, carnil@...ian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 75/95] random: set up the NUMA crng instances after the CRNG is fully initialized

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> What\'s the resolution here? It\'s still triggering upstream as well, as of 
> 69bfd470f462:
> 
> [    8.881634] dracut: Switching root
> 
> [    8.994899] ================================
> [    8.999338] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> [    9.003760] 4.17.0-rc2-00151-g43ae031-dirty #1 Not tainted
> [    9.009389] --------------------------------
> [    9.013803] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
> [    9.019956] swapper/2/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
> [    9.025244]         (ptrval) (fs_reclaim){?.+.}, at: fs_reclaim_acquire.part.87+0x5/0x30
> [    9.033598] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> [    9.038628]   fs_reclaim_acquire.part.87+0x29/0x30
> [    9.043568]   kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x2c/0x240
> [    9.048248]   alloc_workqueue_attrs+0x29/0x60
> [    9.052755]   workqueue_init+0x4a/0x2e4
> [    9.056741]   kernel_init_freeable+0x108/0x286
> [    9.061335]   kernel_init+0xa/0x110
> [    9.064974]   ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50
> 
> ....
> 
> Is there a fix or a revert that can be tested?

Yes, you can test a fix at http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180424034138.23994-1-tytso@mit.edu .

I thought that that fix still causes a problem. But it seems that I made a quick judgment.
I can no longer reproduce the problem with that fix.