[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH+eYFBSiL44CMOpgED+TAOTUH_dQMaKKu=hC3ynG0Y2nQ8ekw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:37:26 +0530
From: Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>
To: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@...com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
lak <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
lk <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: BUG() dies silently
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 01:45, Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@...com> wrote:
> There are some cases where the code generated for BUG() results
> into an infinite while loop without causing a null dereference,
> this ends on a kernel being stuck on a loop and the user without
> a clue of what happened.
>
> E.g.: lib/scatterlist.c : __sg_alloc_table
>
> BUG_ON(nents > max_ents);
> 438: 9a000000 bls 440 <__sg_alloc_table+0x20>
> 43c: eafffffe b 43c <__sg_alloc_table+0x1c>
>
> Adding volatile makes the compiler to avoid optimizations on this
> code, which makes the panic to occur:
>
> BUG_ON(nents > max_ents);
> 438: 9a000002 bls 448 <__sg_alloc_table+0x28>
> 43c: e3a03000 mov r3, #0
> 440: e5833000 str r3, [r3]
> 444: eafffffc b 43c <__sg_alloc_table+0x1c>
>
> Seen with gnu/linux cs arm-2010q1-202 and arm2010.09-50.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@...com>
If the "Use generic BUG() handler" patch is only scheduled for the next
merge window and not for 3.1, can this patch be merged instead for 3.1
and -stable? This problem is easily seen with GCC 4.6.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists