[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251103182917.74ecb8a6.michal.pecio@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 18:37:13 +0100
From: Michal Pecio <michal.pecio@...il.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: bp@...en8.de, da.gomez@...sung.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, petr.pavlu@...e.com,
samitolvanen@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 22/28] x86: Use RCU in all users of
__module_address().
On Mon, 3 Nov 2025 12:37:50 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Now, get_stack_info() where the warning originates: It starts with a
> check to see if the stack pointer belongs to the current task's stack
> frame which it does not. Then it checks if the task found is the
> currently running task. That it does. So in that case, we must be
> serving an exception (such as an IRQ) because the stack does not
> belong to the current task. However preemption is not disabled which
> indicates that we do not do this.
> This in turn suggests that nvidia replaced the stack from while
> entering the syscall probably in _nv003168kms() or the binary blob
> which invokes the kernel function does not have a proper ORC entry
> which leads to a wrong turn in the process.
OK, I see, preemption should only be enabled in the first case, so
others are free to assume it's disabled. No bug.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists