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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <OF02CC82B6.A4FF1EBC-ON88257259.001EB0D8-88257259.001F3FCF@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:41:19 -0800
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, jarkao2@...pl,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!  (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

Ben,
         If the ip_rcv() and the inetdev_init() are on the same
interface in your stack backtrace, it's a certainty at that point
that the lock value is still 0ed, because none of the initialization
occurs until after it has returned from the function it interrupted
to do the receive.
        It'd have to be out of the register code and doing
ip_mc_init_dev() (after that call) to be a tight race with
lock creation.

                                        +-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