netdev - Re: [PROBLEM] WARNING: at kernel/exit.c:910 do

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:	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:11:34 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] WARNING: at kernel/exit.c:910 do_exit

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, but still I am puzzled a bit. Where ->fs_excl != 0 comes from?
> Not that I really understand what it means, but nothing in this path
> can do lock_super(), I think. This means it was already nonzero or
> the bug caused the memory corruption.

I would guess that by the time you do three recursive oopses, you've
probably used up all the kernel stack and you've stomped on the
thread_info itself. At that point, thread->tsk might be totally
random. So it's possible that "current->fs_excl" is nonzero simply
because "current" is a random pointer at this point.

Or it might be memory corruption, and the same thing that caused the
original oops.

I dunno.

I do wonder if we should just flag a thread as "busy oopsing" before
we call "do_exit(), so that _if_ we do a recursive oops we

 (a) don't print it out (except just a one-liner to say "recursively
oopsed in %pS" or something)
 (b) don't try to clean up with do_exit (because that's likely just
going to oops again or run out of stack etc)

That might have left us with a more visible original oops. Maybe the
register contents at that point could have given us any ideas (ie
things like the slab poisoning memory patterns or whatever).

> Btw, why it is atomic_t ?

That whole thing is insane. Afaik, there is one single user (apart
from the WARN_ON), and that's some stupid block scheduler crap for IO
priority boosting.

The block layer people have been way too eager to add random ugly
crud. And no, I don't see why the atomic_t would make any sense. It's
thread-local.

                 Linus
--
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