Subject: Re: [PATCH] SYSVIPC - Fix the ipc structures initialization
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, cboulte@gmail.com,
       Nadia.Derbey@bull.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <491BC4B8.1050406@colorfullife.com>
References: <20081028145952.620752409@bull.net>
	 <20081028150041.857635775@bull.net>
	 <4f3ee3290810290211y75a2d0eaoe666496e25496260@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20081111141603.f0e7fa8d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	 <491BC4B8.1050406@colorfullife.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:06:34 +0100
Message-Id: <1226563594.7685.4394.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 884
Lines: 22

On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:10 +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Time is starting to press on this one.  Is there something which we can
> > revert which would fix this bug?
> >   
> My previous analysis was bogus, let's start from scratch:
> 
> 1) the initial oops report:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11796#c0
> 
> - lockdep is enabled, the oops is somewhere in __lock_acquire
> - the instruction that oopses is

> For me, it reads like an uninitialized spinlock_t:

Yes, most (if not all) oopsen in either __lock_acquire or __lock_release
are stomped on spinlocks, either use after free or otherwise.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/