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: <OF02F7C182.A05F7E5A-ON88257259.001B0EFA-88257259.001E96CF@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:34:06 -0800
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	greearb@...delatech.com, jarkao2@...pl, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!  (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

Herbert,
        You're right, I don't know whether it'll fix the problem Ben saw
or not, but it looks like the original code can do a receive before the
in_device is fully initialized, and that, of course, is bad.
        If the device for ip_rcv() is not the same one we were
initializing when the receive interrupted, then the patch should have
no effect either way -- I don't think it'll hide other problems.
        If it's hard to reproduce (which I guess is true), then you're
right, no soft lockup doesn't really tell us if it's fixed or not.

                                        +-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