linux-kernel - Re: test 1: was: Re: A Comparison of printk between upstream and linux-rt-devel

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: <Zsy12a7DQqu7h4zp@debarbos-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:05:29 -0400
From: Derek Barbosa <debarbos@...hat.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, pmaldek@...e.com, williams@...hat.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: test 1: was: Re: A Comparison of printk between upstream and
 linux-rt-devel

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 07:02:49PM +0206, John Ogness wrote:
> For the 8250, I would expect the legacy driver (even during "hope and
> pray" mode) to be fairly reliable.
> 
> If this is running in QEMU, you could attach gdb and dump the backtrace
> for the panic CPU and investigate some state variables. If this is
> reproducible, it may be worth investigating where/why the legacy
> printing is choking.
> 
> John Ogness

Hi John.

This is not running in QEMU. I installed & booted this kernel directly.
Considering that this produced a vmcore, I could try my hand at doing a crash
analysis (with some pointers).

Do you think running this kernel in QEMU would behave any differently than it is
now?

Best,