linux-kernel - Re: 4.18-rc* regression: x86-32 troubles (with timers?)

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, 5 Jul 2018 12:54:47 +0300 (EEST)
From:   Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
cc:     Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 4.18-rc* regression: x86-32 troubles (with timers?)

> > I tried 4.18.0-rc1-00023-g9ffc59d57228 and now
> > 4.18.0-rc3-00113-gfc36def997cf on a 32-bit server and then some other
> > 32-bit machines, and got half-failed bootup - kernel and userspace come
> > up but some services fail to start, including network and
> > systemd-journald:
> >
> > systemd-journald[85]: Assertion 'clock_gettime(map_clock_id(clock_id), &ts) == 0' failed at ../src/basic/time-util.c:53, function now(). Aborting.
> >
> > I then tried multiple other machines. All x86-64 machines seem
> > unaffected, some x86-32 machines are affected (Athlon with AMD750
> > chipset, Fujitsu RX100-S2 with P4-3.4, and P4 with Intel 865 chipset),
> > some very similar x86-32 machines are unaffected. I have different
> > customized kernel configuration on them, so far I have not pinpointed
> > any configuration option to be at fault.
> >
> > All machines run Debian unstable.
> >
> > 4.17.0 was working fine.
> >
> > Will continue with bisecting between 4.17.0 and
> > 4.18.0-rc1-00023-g9ffc59d57228.
> 
> That does sound like it is related to my patches indeed. If you are not
> yet done bisecting, please checkout commit e27c49291a7f ("x86: Convert
> x86_platform_ops to timespec64") before you try anything else, that
> one is the top of the branch with my changes. If that fails, the bisection
> will be much quicker.

This commit was fine. So it's likely something else.

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@...ux.ee)