linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [lkp] [spi] 2baed30cb3: BUG: scheduling while atomic: systemd-udevd/134/0x00000002

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:	Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:09:47 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@...torindia.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, lkp@...org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [spi] 2baed30cb3: BUG: scheduling while atomic:
 systemd-udevd/134/0x00000002

Hi Huang, Ying,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:36:52AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 01:47:10PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:00:40PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > >> Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> writes:
> > >> 
> > >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 08:44:37AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> <snip>
> > >
> > > I am not able to reproduce this. Tested just with the kernel and
> > > yocto-minimal-i386.cgz filesystem and it booted properly.
> > >
> > > I guess I need atleast your job file to reproduce this.
> > 
> > This is a boot test so I did not attached the job file.  But the test
> > result may depends on specific root file system.  For example, the
> > process when BUG report is always systemd-udevd.  Maybe you need a
> > systemd based root file system.
> 
> So silly of me. Since you said 2baed30cb3, so i kept looking at that
> patch.
> Can you please test again after reverting:
> ebd43516d387 ("Staging: panel: usleep_range is preferred over udelay")
> 
> If it solves the problem then I will submit a formal patch.

Did you get a chance to test it?

regards
sudip