linux-kernel - Re: commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 leads to failed boot

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]

Message-ID: <1509f29e04b3d1ac899981e0adaad98bbc0ee61a.camel@web.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 21:19:56 +0200
From: Bert Karwatzki <spasswolf@....de>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, "Aithal, Srikanth" <sraithal@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kuniyuki Iwashima	
 <kuniyu@...zon.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, Petr Mladek	
 <pmladek@...e.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, John Ogness	
 <john.ogness@...utronix.de>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
 	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux-Next Mailing List	
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, spasswolf@....de
Subject: Re: commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 leads to failed boot

Am Mittwoch, dem 23.04.2025 um 11:07 -0700 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 08:49:08PM +0530, Aithal, Srikanth wrote:
> > On 4/23/2025 7:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 07:09:42PM +0530, Aithal, Srikanth wrote:
> > > > On 4/23/2025 5:24 PM, Bert Karwatzki wrote:
> > > > > Since linux next-20250422 booting fails on my MSI Alpha 15 Laptop runnning
> > > > > debian sid. When booting kernel message appear on screen but no messages from
> > > > > init (systemd). There are also no logs written even thought emergency sync
> > > > > via magic sysrq works (a message is printed on screen), presumably because
> > > > > / is not mounted. I bisected this (from 6.15-rc3 to next-20250422) and found
> > > > > commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 as the first bad commit.
> > > > > Reverting commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 in next-20250422 fixes the issue.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > On AMD platform as well boot failed starting next-20250422, bisecting the
> > > > issue led me to same commit dd4cf8c9e1f4. I have attached kernel config and
> > > > logs.
> > > 
> > > Thank you all for the bisection and the report!
> > > 
> > > Please check out the predecessor of commit dd4cf8c9e1f4 ("ratelimit:
> > > Force re-initialization when rate-limiting re-enabled"):
> > > 
> > > 13fa70e052dd ("ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst to disable ratelimiting")
> > > 
> > > Then please apply the patch shown below, and let me know what happens?
> > > (Yes, I should have split that commit up...)
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > index 04f16b8e24575..13ed636642270 100644
> > > --- a/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> > > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
> > >   	unsigned long flags;
> > >   	int ret;
> > > -	if (!interval || !burst)
> > > +	if (interval <= 0 || burst <= 0)
> > >   		return 1;
> > >   	/*
> > 
> > 
> > I applied above patch on top of 13fa70e052dd ("ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst
> > to disable ratelimiting") [linux-20250423]. This is fixing the boot issue.
> > 
> > Tested-by: Srikanth Aithal <sraithal@....com>
> 
> Thank you both, and to Bert for intuiting the correct -next commit!
> 
> Could you please try the next increment, which is this patch, again
> on top of 24ff89c63355 ("ratelimit: Allow zero ->burst to > disable
> ratelimiting")?
> 
> In the meantime, I will expose the version you two just tested to
> -next.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
> index 04f16b8e24575..8f6c54f719ef2 100644
> --- a/lib/ratelimit.c
> +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> @@ -35,8 +35,10 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (!interval || !burst)
> +	if (interval <= 0 || burst <= 0) {
> +		ret = burst > 0;
>  		return 1;
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If we contend on this state's lock then just check if

If you set "ret = burst > 0", but "return 1" this will make no difference
(except in the case of a major compiler bug, probably), as I wrote in my other
email which overlapped yours, this fixes the issue in next-20250422:

diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
index b5c727e976d2..fc28f6cf8269 100644
--- a/lib/ratelimit.c
+++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
         * interval says never limit.
         */
        if (interval <= 0 || burst <= 0) {
-               ret = burst > 0;
+               ret = 1;
                if (!(READ_ONCE(rs->flags) & RATELIMIT_INITIALIZED) ||
                    !raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags))
                        return ret;

Bert Karwatzki