[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140110201020.GK7572@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:10:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV when using "perf record -g" with 3.13-rc* kernel
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:37:10PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >@@ -641,7 +641,7 @@ no_context(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
> >
> > /* Are we prepared to handle this kernel fault? */
> > if (fixup_exception(regs)) {
> >- if (current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error&& signal) {
> >+ if (!in_nmi()&& current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error&& signal) {
> > tsk->thread.trap_nr = X86_TRAP_PF;
> > tsk->thread.error_code = error_code | PF_USER;
> > tsk->thread.cr2 = address;
>
> Yes, this change fixed the error that I got. I no longer see SIGSEGV when I
> run the test.
Awesome, just send a more elaborate version that should have the same
effect.
> I did tried to back out your "perf: Fix arch_perf_out_copy_user default"
> patch, but it didn't fix the problem.
The culprit was: e00b12e64be9 ("perf/x86: Further optimize
copy_from_user_nmi()")
--
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