linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: amd: Fix locking in ACP IRQ handler

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]

Message-ID: <c47db4cb-cfb3-4e1c-88c9-f8b82c805b31@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 12:43:42 +0200
From: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
 Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
 Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>,
 Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
 Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
 Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
 Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>, Jaroslav Kysela
 <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
 Venkata Prasad Potturu <venkataprasad.potturu@....com>,
 sound-open-firmware@...a-project.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: amd: Fix locking in ACP IRQ handler

On 2/9/24 12:09, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 01:43:14AM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> 
>> 1707255557.133976 kernel: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at include/linux/sched/mm.h:315
>> 1707255557.134068 kernel: in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 502, name: irq/66-AudioDSP
>> 1707255557.134089 kernel: preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
> 
> 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.

The commit message got indeed larger than I initially expected as I
tried to document two different contexts.  Should I try to shrink this
up a bit and resend the patch?

Thanks,
Cristian