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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 03:07:01 +0200 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 29/35] mm: slub: Move flush_cpu_slab() invocations __free_slab() invocations out of IRQ context On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 22:08 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 8/9/2021 8:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > slab_mutex -> flush_lock > > > > Bugger. That chain ending with cpu_hotplug_lock makes slub_cpu_dead() > > taking slab_mutex a non-starter for cpu hotplug as well. It's > > established early by kernel_init_freeable()..kmem_cache_destroy() as > > well as by slab_mem_going_offline_callback(). > > I suck at reading the lockdep splats, so I don't see yet how the "existing > reverse order" occurs - I do understand the order in the "lsbug". > What I also wonder is why didn't this occur also in the older RT trees with this > patch. Apparently (oops) nobody got around to hotplug+lockdep testing, RT or otherwise. I know I didn't, goldfish like attention span being used up by explosion testing ;-) -Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists