linux-kernel - Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190131170653.spnrxsiblkssleyd@linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:06:53 +0100
From:   Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Stefan Liebler <stli@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: WARN_ON_ONCE(!new_owner) within wake_futex_pi() triggerede

On 2019-01-31 17:52:28 [+0100], Heiko Carstens wrote:
> ...nevertheless Stefan and I looked through the lovely disassembly of
> _pthread_mutex_lock_full() to verify if the compiler barriers are
> actually doing what they are supposed to do. The generated code
> however does look correct.
> So, it must be something different.

would it make sense to use one locking function instead all three (lock,
try-lock, timed) in the test case to figure out if this is related to
one of the locking function?

Sebastian