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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:04:11 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
Cc:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, dlstevens@...ibm.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:10:45AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:03:50AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
...
> > > >  * Must be invoked with RCU read lock (no preempt)
> > > >  */
> > > > struct net_device *__find_vlan_dev(struct net_device *real_dev,
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > But later in this file no sign of disabling preemption
> > > > for these calls and for hlist_add_head_rcu and hlist_del_rcu.
> > > >
> > > > I can't imagine how this works?
> > 
> > Preempt is already disabled on the receive path.
> 
> I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing -

Hello Stephen,

It looks like you're talking about the right thing
and I'm a fool again! Now I try to find why I even 
had to pay for this. I read again and again adequate
chapters from R. Love and C. Benvenuti's books, see
a lot about kernel preemption in 2.6, but can't see
anything about preemption disabled in ioctls - maybe
I'm blind or they are badly translated. Now I look
into "Linux Device Drivers", see ch. 6 about ioctls,
blocking I/O and RCU, but nothing about preemption
disabled again. Maybe this is omited because it's
obvious to people who started hacking with earlier
kernels?

When I added to this things like: "If the mutex is
not available right now, it will sleep until it can
get it." and "It is illegal to block while in an RCU
read-side critical section." I didn't even try to
think about mutex or malloc with GFP_KERNEL inside
RCU block.

I'm enormously grateful you didn't lose patience
in guiding me yet - I hope it'll save this list from
nervous breakdown.

Many thanks and regards as always,

Jarek P.

PS: probably you could profit from this some day 
and write something like "Linux Internals for
Dummies" - it would be simple cut & paste of my
discoveries and your responses!
-
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