[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160615180722.GG30309@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:07:22 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, wfg@...ux.intel.com,
LKP <lkp@...org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [x86] 5ac0c41bf3: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at
arch/x86/mm/extable.c:50 ex_handler_rdmsr_unsafe
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:55:34AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Isn't it this one?
Yes, it is.
> I'm not. If %pF points at some silly helper, we still want the frames below it.
Why silly helper? It points to the rIP where the *MSR instruction is.
Can't get more precise than that.
And yes, %pF is better:
[ 0.030879] unchecked MSR access error: RDMSR from 0x1b0 at rIP: 0xffffffff81026d9f (init_intel_energy_perf.part.3+0xf/0xd0)
Ok, I'll send a patch.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists