From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753803Ab1HARcQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:16 -0400
Received: from mail-ey0-f171.google.com ([209.85.215.171]:56926 "EHLO
	mail-ey0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753351Ab1HARcM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:12 -0400
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 21:32:06 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, serge.hallyn@canonical.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, toralf.foerster@gmx.de
Subject: Re: shm updates broke UML
Message-ID: <20110801173206.GA26440@albatros>
References: <201108011541.59640.richard@nod.at>
 <20110801134911.GA11705@albatros>
 <43e4e9e98b32d3d3eb06ab837a019ad8@localhost>
 <20110801171042.GA25954@albatros>
 <08cf4697685ecd9bcb7e4eefe516f2ee@localhost>
 <20110801172452.GA26190@albatros>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110801172452.GA26190@albatros>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Marc,

On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 21:24 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 19:19 +0200, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Here you go (sorry about the line wrapping, damned webmail...):
> 
> Thank you!  Now I see that the problem is rw_mutex is not initialized:
> 
> 	down_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
> 
> void __sched __down_write_nested(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int subclass)
> {
>     ...
> 	if (sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is NULL
> 
> Wtf - ipc namespace should be fully initialized for the moment of
> threads run...

Does ARM try to run _any_ threads before do_initcalls()?  IPC
initialization is initcall, so any thread before do_initcalls() is a
dependency bug.

static void __init do_basic_setup(void)
{
	cpuset_init_smp();
	usermodehelper_init();
	init_tmpfs();
	driver_init();
	init_irq_proc();
	do_ctors();
	do_initcalls(); <<<<
}

Thanks,

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments