netdev - Re: unsafe locks seen with netperf on net-2.6.29 tree

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: <20081229125528.GA23674@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:55:28 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Tantilov, Emil S" <emil.s.tantilov@...el.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Subject: Re: unsafe locks seen with netperf on net-2.6.29 tree


* Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:38:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > hm, even with the revert i got the splat below. So some other commits are 
> > causing this too?
> 
> Indeed, there is more :)
> 
> > stack backtrace:
> > Pid: 1435, comm: kjournald Not tainted 2.6.28-tip-03883-gf855e6c-dirty #13150
> > Call Trace:
> >  [<c015a0d6>] print_usage_bug+0x176/0x1d0
> >  [<c015b800>] mark_lock+0xbd0/0xd80
> >  [<c015da13>] __lock_acquire+0x483/0xae0
> >  [<c015bcdb>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
> >  [<c015e0f9>] lock_acquire+0x89/0xc0
> >  [<c034fc75>] ? __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
> >  [<c07247a8>] _spin_lock+0x38/0x50
> >  [<c034fc75>] ? __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
> >  [<c034fc75>] __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
> >  [<c060dc49>] tcp_v4_destroy_sock+0x1d9/0x240
> 
> This came from 1748376b6626acf59c24e9592ac67b3fe2a0e026 which also
> has the same bug (although this particular trace is bogus and is
> fixed by Peter's first patch).
> 
> I think these are the only two percpu counter patches around that
> time frame.
> 
> Also watch out for 6976a1d6c222c50ac93d2273b9cf57e6fd047e59 when
> reverting.

okay, since i'm not really in the business of reverting various networking 
patches, would you mind to Cc: me to the real fixes, once they are 
available? Or do you think a revert will be the approach in -git? (in 
which case i can guinea-pig the above reverts i guess)

	Ingo
--
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