[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <520E58F3.4080309@nod.at>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:53:07 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] print_worker_info: Handle pointer with more care
Am 16.08.2013 18:45, schrieb Tejun Heo:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:38:58PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> cc'ing uml people. Hey, guys, workqueue uses proble_kernel_read() to
>>> print out workqueue related information during oops because those
>>> events are completely asynchronous and workqueue states may not be
>>> consistently accessible. It seems like uml doesn't implement
>>> probe_kernel_read() and tries direct derference of incorrect pointers
>>> leading to its own oops. Maybe uml should check whether the memory is
>>> mapped from probe_kernel_read()?
>>
>> You are already talking to UML people. ;)
>
> Ooh... :)
>
>> Anyway, I'll investigate into that.
>> What I see so far is that pwq is NULL after probe_kernel_read().
>
> Yeah, and that should be fine. &pwq->wq would be just an offset of wq
Yep. Now my brain also parsed the C notation correctly.
Sorry for the completely wrong patch.
> from NULL which is an invalid pointer but probe_kernel_read() should
> be able to handle that and probably just return 0 or -1 (all bits
> set). I *think* what's necessary is making probe_kernel_read() use
> mincore() to fine out whether the requested address is mapped (it
> should return -EFAULT if not) and try to dereference the address iff
> it's mapped.
UML needs a custom probe_kernel_read()? Fine. :)
Thanks,
//richard
--
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