linux-kernel - Re: [lkp] [ACPI] 7494b07eba: Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 10 Oct 2015 01:44:12 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To:	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	kernel test robot <ying.huang@...ux.intel.com>, lkp@...org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [ACPI] 7494b07eba: Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog
 detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0

On 10/10/2015 12:52 AM, Al Stone wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 03:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 08, 2015 05:05:00 PM Al Stone wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2015 04:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 08, 2015 02:32:15 PM Al Stone wrote:
>>>>> On 10/08/2015 02:41 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, October 08, 2015 10:37:55 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, October 08, 2015 10:36:40 AM Al Stone wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/08/2015 05:44 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/08/2015 11:21 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>>>>>>>> commit 7494b07ebaae2117629024369365f7be7adc16c3 ("ACPI: add in a
>>>>>>>>>> bad_madt_entry() function to eventually replace the macro")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [    0.000000] ACPI: undefined MADT subtable type for FADT 4.0: 127 (length 12)
> [snip....]
>
>>> In the meantime, I'll poke the spec folks on the use of reserved subtable IDs
>>> in the MADT and see what the consensus is there.  It may just be a matter of
>>> clarifying the language in the spec.
>> One additional question to ask is what checks have been present in the OSes
>> and what they do if they see a reserved MADT subtable ID.  If they haven't been
>> doing anything so far, I'm afraid this particular train may be gone already.
> It may be gone.  The silence so far is deafening :).
>
>>> It's also on my plate to really dig into an ACPI test suite and see about
>>> building something really robust for that -- this can be added as an example.
>>> I'll see if I have time to send in a patch for FWTS, too, which is pretty
>>> good about capturing such things.
>> Sounds good!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rafael
>>
> Let me know if I need to send the patch to fix the regression elsewhere; it
> dawned on me long after I sent it that this may not be the right place for it
> to go...
>

Please send it to linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
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/