linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [lkp] [spi] 2baed30cb3: BUG: scheduling while atomic: systemd-udevd/134/0x00000002

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]

Message-ID: <87twm2be0w.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:15:27 +0800
From:	"Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc:	"Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@...torindia.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, <lkp@...org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [spi] 2baed30cb3: BUG: scheduling while atomic: systemd-udevd/134/0x00000002

Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> writes:

> Hi Huang, Ying,
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:36:52AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 01:47:10PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> > Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> writes:
>> > 
>> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:00:40PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> > >> Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com> writes:
>> > >> 
>> > >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 08:44:37AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > >
>> > > I am not able to reproduce this. Tested just with the kernel and
>> > > yocto-minimal-i386.cgz filesystem and it booted properly.
>> > >
>> > > I guess I need atleast your job file to reproduce this.
>> > 
>> > This is a boot test so I did not attached the job file.  But the test
>> > result may depends on specific root file system.  For example, the
>> > process when BUG report is always systemd-udevd.  Maybe you need a
>> > systemd based root file system.
>> 
>> So silly of me. Since you said 2baed30cb3, so i kept looking at that
>> patch.
>> Can you please test again after reverting:
>> ebd43516d387 ("Staging: panel: usleep_range is preferred over udelay")
>> 
>> If it solves the problem then I will submit a formal patch.
>
> Did you get a chance to test it?

Sorry for late, as the new report just sent.  Reverting the specified
commit can solve the issue.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying