linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in subsys

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:	Fri, 22 May 2015 09:12:44 -0700
From:	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Lu, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] usb: ulpi: ulpi_init should be executed in
 subsys_initcall

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:50:47PM +0800, Lu, Baolu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/22/2015 02:46 PM, Lu, Baolu wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 05/22/2015 11:11 AM, David Cohen wrote:
> >>On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:09:54PM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:07:05AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> >>>>Many drivers and modules depend on ULPI bus registeration to
> >>>>register ULPI interfaces and drivers. It's more appropriate
> >>>>to register ULPI bus in subsys_initcall instead of module_init.
> >>>>
> >>>>Kernel panic has been reported with some kind of kernel config.
> >>>Even though I agree subsys_initcall is better to register ulpi bus,
> >>>it's
> >>>still no excuse to have kernel panic. What about ULPI bus being
> >>>compiled
> >>>as module?
> >
> >No kernel panic if ULPI is built as a module.
> >
> >>>IMHO this is avoiding the proper kernel panic fix which should be
> >>>failing gracefully (or defer probe) from tusb1210 driver.
> >>Maybe I need to express myself better :)
> >>IMHO we should not consider work done with this patch only. It's still
> >>incomplete.
> >
> >I am with you on that we should know the real problem.
> >
> >I could go ahead with further debugging. Do you have any suggestions
> >about which direction should I go?
> 
> I forgot to mention that the panic was found in an Android environment.
> The kernel version is  v4.1-rc3.

FWIW:

The problem with Android environment is the amount of off-tree patches
you may have over there.
For upstream tasks, I'd suggest use a clean tree + patches you want to
test. Usually yocto looks more friendly to test under this environment.

Br, David

> 
> >
> >>
> >>Br, David
> >
> >Thank you,
> >-Baolu
> >
> >>-- 
> >>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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >-- 
> >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/
> >
> 
--
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/