netdev - Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

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: <OFB8CE3E37.99FD5849-ON88257257.0080FAE8-88257257.00819B15@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:35:39 -0800
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	jarkao2@...pl, NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!  (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

I've looked at this a little too -- it'd be nice to know who holds
the write lock.

I see ip_mc_destroy_dev() is bouncing through the lock for
each multicast address, though it starts at the beginning of
the list each time. I don't see a problem with it, but it'd be
simpler if it acquired the write lock once, grabbed and nulled
the list, released the lock and then called igmp_group_dropped()
& ip_ma_put() on each address from the local list copy.

Are you destroying/creating interfaces or doing a lot of multicasting at
the time? How many group memberships do you have?

                                        +-DLS

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html