From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [Bug 49151] New: NULL pointer dereference in pata_acpi Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:27:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20121022202734.GA16169@liondog.tnic> References: <20121020120047.GC17563@liondog.tnic> <50841CFC.2030802@talktalk.net> <20121021165756.GA20642@liondog.tnic> <50856AA8.1000607@talktalk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:59193 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756157Ab2JVU1i (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:27:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50856AA8.1000607@talktalk.net> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Cc: "Anton V. Boyarshinov" , bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik , Alan Cox On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 04:47:52PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > 00:04.0 IDE interface: ULi Electronics Inc. M5229 IDE (rev c3) (prog-= if f0) > Subsystem: Toshiba America Info Systems Device 0004 > Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 64, IRQ 255 > [virtual] Memory at 000001f0 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=3D8] > [virtual] Memory at 000003f0 (type 3, non-prefetchable) > [virtual] Memory at 00000170 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=3D8] > [virtual] Memory at 00000370 (type 3, non-prefetchable) > I/O ports at eff0 [size=3D16] > Capabilities: [60] Power Management version 2 > Kernel driver in use: pata_ali Ok, your IDE interface is supported by pata_ali... [ =E2=80=A6 ] > If I blacklist pata_acpi and remove it from the initrd image then my > unpatched distro kernel boots and seems to run fine (I've not checked > if the hard drive power management is affected though). I've attached > the dmesg from the patched kernel which was built with a minimal > config. Right, as it looks above, pata_ali should be able to support your IDE interface, so you might not be needing the pata_acpi thing after all. So yes, blacklisting it and verifying that your system still operates normally would be something to do. If it does, you could also build a kernel with pata_acpi disabled (that is, provided you build your own kernels). HTH. --=20 Regards/Gruss, Boris.