linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] 3.15-rc5: Regression in i915 driver?

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 17 May 2014 19:43:42 +0200
From:	Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>
To:	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	" intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] 3.15-rc5: Regression in i915 driver?

3.15-rc2 seems to be good, 3.15-rc5 seems to be bad. Bisecting this the next days.

Am 12.05.2014 18:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>:
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:09:54AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: 
> > On Sun, 11 May 2014, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote: 
> > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote: 
> > >> On 11 May 2014 18:28, Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de> wrote: 
> > >>> Hi, 
> > >>> 
> > >>> 3.14.3 works as expected. 
> > >>> 3.15-rc5 shows a strange behaviour: When resuming from ram the X server 
> > >>> seems to be disfunctional. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> I see this WARNING in the kernel log before suspend to ram in the early 
> > >>> boot process: 
> > > 
> > > Doesn't ring a bell really. 
> > > - Is there anything in dmesg after resume? 
> > > - How exactly does X misbehave? Is fbcon still working? Does X 
> > > behaviour get restored if you restart X? 
> > > - Can you please try to bisect this issue? Note that the backlight 
> > > issue might be unrelated to the issues with X misbehaving after 
> > > resume. You might need to do a bisect for both if the symptoms don't 
> > > agree. 
> > 
> > I agree the WARNING from i965_enable_backlight() is unrelated. Focus on 
> > the other symptoms first. 
>
> The backlight backtrace seems to be a genuine new bug. Bisecting it would 
> be highly appreciated. Bisecting on the other issue and appending the 
> result to the bug Chris quoated should also really be useful - atm we 
> don't have any reported who can reproduce this clearly enough to do a 
> bisect. 
> -Daniel 
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter 
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation 
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch