linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_max98927: Fix kabylake_ssp

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:   Mon, 26 Oct 2020 22:27:47 +0000
From:   Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, cujomalainey@...omium.org,
        Łukasz Majczak <lmajczak@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: kbl_rt5663_max98927: Fix kabylake_ssp_fixup
 function

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:02:26PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 02:16:24PM +0000, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 
> > Fixes a boot crash on a HP Chromebook x2:
> > 
> > [   16.582225] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000050
> > [   16.582231] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
> > [   16.582233] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
> > [   16.582234] PGD 0 P4D 0
> > [   16.582238] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
> > [   16.582241] CPU: 0 PID: 1980 Comm: cras Tainted: G         C        5.4.58 #1
> > [   16.582243] Hardware name: HP Soraka/Soraka, BIOS Google_Soraka.10431.75.0 08/30/2018
> 
> Please think hard before including complete backtraces in upstream
> reports, they are very large and contain almost no useful information
> relative to their size so often obscure the relevant content in your
> message. If part of the backtrace is usefully illustrative (it often is
> for search engines if nothing else) then it's usually better to pull out
> the relevant sections.

Okay, I'll trim things down next time. Somehow I was convinced it's a
common practice.

Best regards,
Tomasz