linux-kernel - dwarf2 stuck Re: lockdep warning in i2c_transfer() with dibx000 DVB

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <4533991C.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:37:16 +0200
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Jiri Kosina" <jikos@...os.cz>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	<khali@...ux-fr.org>, <v4l-dvb-maintainer@...uxtv.org>,
	<i2c@...sensors.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: dwarf2 stuck Re: lockdep warning in i2c_transfer() with
	dibx000 DVB - input tree merge plans?

>> stack backtrace:
>> [<c0103b69>] dump_trace+0x65/0x1a2
>> [<c0103cb6>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x10/0x20
>> [<c0103f84>] show_trace+0xa/0xc
>> [<c0103f99>] dump_stack+0x13/0x15
>> [<c0132ea4>] __lock_acquire+0x7bd/0xa05
>> [<c01333c1>] lock_acquire+0x5c/0x7b
>> [<c034b683>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xab/0x1de
>> [<f8902177>] i2c_transfer+0x23/0x40 [i2c_core]
>> [<f88fa1bf>] dibx000_i2c_gated_tuner_xfer+0x166/0x185 [dibx000_common]
>> [<f8902183>] i2c_transfer+0x2f/0x40 [i2c_core]
>> [<f891f04b>] mt2060_readreg+0x4b/0x69 [mt2060]
>> [<f891f45e>] mt2060_attach+0x40/0x1ea [mt2060]
>> [<f895f468>] dibusb_dib3000mc_tuner_attach+0x126/0x16c 
>> [dvb_usb_dibusb_common]
>> [<d10ea000>] 0xd10ea000
>> DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xd10ea000
>
>Hmm, no assembly code or anything. Jan, do you have any ideas?
>This looks just like a simple callback that goes over a module
>boundary.

No, except if this was compiled with gcc 4.0.x (or maybe earlier), in which
case inspection of the unwind data might be needed to tell if it's one of the
mis-generated cases that we saw earlier.

Again - a stack trace alone (as above) will never be likely to yield anything,
raw stack data and in some (most?) cases the relevant unwind data are also
needed.

Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/