[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35a54261-965e-dc03-ef8e-3a44faa8846e@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:12:54 +0800
From: Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 10/18/2018 06:26 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?
It wasn't applied during this testing.
Best Regards,
Rong Chen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists