[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180403092902.i2xg3dmdlcv477aw@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:29:03 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+d1fe9b7b917f2715c7d4@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: general protection fault in try_to_wake_up
On Tue 2018-04-03 11:13:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:50:03AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > raw_spin_lock() succeeded here. Therefore lockdep was still working
> > at this stage.
>
> What does the success of raw_spin_lock() have to do with lockdep ?
It means that also lockdep succeeded there. Therefore the general
protection fault in __lock_acquire() was specific to the spinlock
taken by try_to_wake_up(). I though that it might had been an useful
information.
Anyway, the other replay from Dmitry suggested that it was a known
bug, see
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CACT4Y+ZJ2QD7MPy4hB-M=mz2LuVu3bRbLg1QdY=z=+Su1QWMqg@mail.gmail.com
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists