[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee5d936351a56a52573a17e46680374df4170b2a.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 18:07:59 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, lstoakes@...il.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
ardb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: arm64: perf test 26 rpi4 oops
On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 12:52 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/kcore.c b/fs/proc/kcore.c
> index 9cb32e1a78a0..3696a209c1ec 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/kcore.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/kcore.c
> @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static struct kcore_list kcore_text;
> */
> static void __init proc_kcore_text_init(void)
> {
> - kclist_add(&kcore_text, _text, _end - _text, KCORE_TEXT);
> + kclist_add(&kcore_text, _stext, _etext - _stext, KCORE_TEXT);
> }
> #else
> static void __init proc_kcore_text_init(void)
That did kill all 945 bogus start instances, and in a brief test drive,
did not appear to have annoyed crash.
The two odd arm64 specific huge objdump allocations persist fwtw.
Unrelated fossilized bug?.. who knows.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists