linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 16/16] ARM: Remove custom IRQ stat accounting

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:34:03 -0300
From:   Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
To:     Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernelci-results@...ups.io, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 16/16] ARM: Remove custom IRQ stat accounting

Hi Guillaume,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:01 AM Guillaume Tucker
<guillaume.tucker@...labora.com> wrote:

> This appears to be causing a NULL pointer dereference on
> beaglebone-black, it got bisected automatically several times.
> None of the other platforms in the KernelCI labs appears to be
> affected.

Actually imx53-qsb is also affected:
https://storage.kernelci.org/next/master/next-20200924/arm/imx_v6_v7_defconfig/gcc-8/lab-pengutronix/baseline-imx53-qsrb.html

kernelci marks it Boot result: PASS though.

Shouldn't kernelci flag a warning or error instead?

Thanks