linux-kernel - Re: Random guest crashes since 5c34d002dcc7 ("virtio_pci: use shared interrupts for virtqueues")

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: <20170407161641-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2017 16:20:12 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        rjones@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Random guest crashes since 5c34d002dcc7 ("virtio_pci: use shared
 interrupts for virtqueues")

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Test tag works fine here w/wo threadirqs, RT works as well.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	-Mike
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > > OK I pushed out two new tags
> > > > 	test1 with just the cleanup reverts
> > > > 	test2 with a bugfix in this area
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I would very much appreciate your testing report on both -
> > > > should be ok but better make sure.
> > > 
> > > Ok, once it percolates out I'll do that.
> > 
> > for_linus-10-g960bef2a6172 contains a -ENOBUILD merge conflict.
> 
> But test2 works fine w/wo threadirqs.

Oops. This is what one gets by pushing at 2am. I fixed that one up
(still didn't even build as I'm in the middle of a conference).
Also it's actually the reverse test2 is just the revert test1 has
one more bugfix.

So I'm inclined to push test2 out to linux-next for now, and will
add test1 later if it fares well.

Mike, your testing is very much appreciated!

-- 
MST