linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 10 (lib/test

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:28:54 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 10 (lib/test_printf.ko)

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:16:49 -0700
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:


> > My test suite just tripped over this bug. Is this the patch that you think
> > fixes it?
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20200414081513.GD2828150@kuha.fi.intel.com  
> 
> Yes, it is, but GregKH and Rafael Wysocki don't seem to like that patch
> and are suggesting some changes in lib/kobject.c (only pseudocode,
> no patch yet).
> 
> > I'll add it to see if I can continue my testing.  
> 
> See the thread
> [PATCH v1] kobject: make sure parent is not released before children
> 
> Here is Rafael's suggestion:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CAJZ5v0hNemTDVa_S-FfVMbrKjM-RWYoHh88asnUvTNxZinY2cw@mail.gmail.com/
> 

Thanks for the update.

If the first patch prevents the crash from happening, then I'll keep it for
the time being. I have a list of patch "fixes" that get applied to the
kernel I'm testing, such that I can run the tests without them failing for
something that I'm not testing. Otherwise, I'd never get to test my code :-)

Some of theses patches just remove "WARN_ON" because those will cause my
tests to fail. I really don't care if i915 triggers WARN_ON() as my code
shouldn't be affecting it.

-- Steve