From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:48:01 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171010054801.GD3323@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFz2dfH69tUX4GBWmU14=uMseLd_21dAvjohOtJYnfoe7A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1234 bytes --]
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 09:57:02AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Can we consider just reverting the crossrelease thing?
> >
> > The apparent stack corruption really worries me [...]
>
> Side note: I also think the thing is just broken.
>
> Any actual cross-releaser should be way more annotated than just "set
> cross to 1" in the lockdep map.
>
> The place where the release is done should simply be special.
>
> Because we should *not* encourage the whole "acquire by one context,
> release by another" as being something normal and "just set the flag
> to let lockdep know".
Could you explain it more? Please let me apply what you point out. Now,
I don't understand your intention.
> So that commit is apparently buggy, but I think it might be more
> fundamentally the wrong model too.
It would be appriciated if you let me know what is buggy wrt
crossrelease and the model, then I will do my best to fix it.
But I believe the model crossrelease uses is what lockdep should have
adopted before.
Anyway, I might be wrong. It would be appriciated if you tell me why you
think so.
Thank you.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKP <lkp@01.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:48:01 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171010054801.GD3323@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFz2dfH69tUX4GBWmU14=uMseLd_21dAvjohOtJYnfoe7A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 09:57:02AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Can we consider just reverting the crossrelease thing?
> >
> > The apparent stack corruption really worries me [...]
>
> Side note: I also think the thing is just broken.
>
> Any actual cross-releaser should be way more annotated than just "set
> cross to 1" in the lockdep map.
>
> The place where the release is done should simply be special.
>
> Because we should *not* encourage the whole "acquire by one context,
> release by another" as being something normal and "just set the flag
> to let lockdep know".
Could you explain it more? Please let me apply what you point out. Now,
I don't understand your intention.
> So that commit is apparently buggy, but I think it might be more
> fundamentally the wrong model too.
It would be appriciated if you let me know what is buggy wrt
crossrelease and the model, then I will do my best to fix it.
But I believe the model crossrelease uses is what lockdep should have
adopted before.
Anyway, I might be wrong. It would be appriciated if you tell me why you
think so.
Thank you.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-10 5:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 102+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-03 14:06 [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2 Fengguang Wu
2017-10-03 14:06 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-03 14:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 14:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 14:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 14:41 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 15:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 15:05 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 16:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 16:28 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 17:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 17:34 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-03 21:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-03 21:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-04 21:06 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 21:06 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 21:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-04 21:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-04 22:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 22:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 22:40 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 22:40 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 11:02 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-05 11:02 ` Tetsuo Handa
2017-10-05 13:57 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 13:57 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 8:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-04 8:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-10 5:57 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 5:57 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-03 16:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-03 16:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-03 16:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-03 16:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 5:48 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2017-10-10 5:48 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 18:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-10 18:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-10 18:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-10 18:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-11 1:14 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 1:14 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 2:36 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 2:36 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 0:56 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 0:56 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 1:02 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-11 1:02 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 1:15 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 1:15 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-03 17:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-03 17:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-04 9:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-04 9:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-04 10:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-04 10:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-10-04 14:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-04 14:15 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-10 5:30 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 5:30 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-05 13:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 13:01 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 14:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-05 14:54 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 12:21 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 12:21 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 12:59 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 12:59 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 13:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 13:03 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 12:55 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 12:55 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 13:26 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 13:26 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-10-09 14:17 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 14:17 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 15:41 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 15:41 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 15:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 15:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-09 15:47 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-09 15:47 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-10 5:08 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-10 5:08 ` Byungchul Park
2017-10-12 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-12 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-12 9:21 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-12 9:21 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-12 9:28 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-12 9:28 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-10-12 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-10-12 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171010054801.GD3323@X58A-UD3R \
--to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.