[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZcELcq0+V5_6yzto2V_TjiH8cWMJRuuALAY-J8Y-3P6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:46:54 +0100
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Michael Bringmann <mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+4d497898effeb1936245@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next boot error: WARNING: workqueue cpumask: online
intersect > possible intersect
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:43 PM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:41:29AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > The real boot error "general protection fault in dma_direct_max_mapping_size" is
> > fixed in mainline now. I believe that unblocks syzbot testing, since it doesn't
> > appear to have been blocked by "WARNING: workqueue cpumask: online intersect >
> > possible intersect" by itself.
> >
> > Anyway: Tejun and Michael, any other ideas for why "WARNING: workqueue cpumask:
> > online intersect > possible intersect" is still happening?
>
> That code hasn't changed in years. It gotta be changes in cpumask
> initialization ordering or sth like that. The easiest way to find the
> culprit would be bisecting. I can't get to it right now. Anyone
> interested?
syzkaller will now ignore this warning as it happens on every boot and
masks all other boot problems:
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/31b7aac4626757ae0862971db78aaa1338541227
syzbot will never remind about this again:
#syz invalid
Powered by blists - more mailing lists