[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181017152621.7e716f4906f81c52c67d59c3@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:26:21 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [LKP] [mm/memory.c] 6558038e45: general_protection_fault:#[##]
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:36:00 +0800 kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com> wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-6):
>
> commit: 6558038e4540a22ee4f99a5def74791189102bc0 ("mm/memory.c: recheck page table entry with page table lock held")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>
> in testcase: trinity
> with following parameters:
>
> runtime: 300s
>
> test-description: Trinity is a linux system call fuzz tester.
> test-url: http://codemonkey.org.uk/projects/trinity/
>
>
> on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu qemu64,+ssse3 -smp 4 -m 4G
>
> caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace):
mm-recheck-page-table-entry-with-page-table-lock-held-fix.patch ("mm:
fix the crash observed with syzkaller run") will most likely fix this.
Was it applied during this testing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists