netdev - Re: Soft-Lockup/Race in networking in 2.6.31-rc1+195 ( possibly?caused by netem)

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: <20090708091344.GD3148@ami.dom.local>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:13:44 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
Cc:	Joao Correia <joaomiguelcorreia@...il.com>,
	Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Soft-Lockup/Race in networking in 2.6.31-rc1+195 (
	possibly?caused by netem)

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:29:34AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 July 2009 10:08:52 Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 06:11:27PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 07 July 2009 15:57:42 Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 03:34:07PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > Testing wether its triggerable inside a vm might be interesting...
> > > >
> > > > Probably similarly to testing without this patch or even less. Maybe
> > > > I should've warned you but this type of bugs in -rc with possible
> > > > memory or stack overwrites might be fatal for your data (at least).
> > >
> > > Fortunately all the data on that machine should either be replaceable or
> > > regularly backuped.
> > >
> > > Will test later today if that patch bugs.
> >
> > If you didn't start yet, it would be nice to use this, btw:
> >
> > CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU = N
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS = Y
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS = Y
> So I should test with a single cpu? Or is there a config where HOTPLUG_CPU does 
> not imply !SMP?

No, my single cpu should be enough ;-) There is something wrong I guess.
I can see in my menuconfig:

SMP [=y]
...
HOTPLUG [=n]
...
HOTPUG_CPU [=y]
...
Depends on SMP && HOTPLUG

So, let it be HOTPLUG_CPU = Y for now...

Jarek P.
--
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