From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237FCC433EF for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 01:38:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB4761166 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 01:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229491AbhIOBjj (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:39:39 -0400 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:51031 "EHLO out5-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230438AbhIOBji (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:39:38 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39535C01EA; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:38:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=JI6Zpz CU9AnXoUmyv/g7x6s9CkZ0zZef3N9ED2S5Zhc=; b=kupY+7c3qqtRVqTEEvQ6Th j0oTBdpPiEJp0yGtAvLBDE4g/KOfJ6FR/28C19QpFIhNo/UI4n8XOUrI/i4NUeRQ xpq0oOzLNjtmDhZPWTgLBCoyd2YQ7d0m+W5CGgxJlMbip8eXo8kRHA726mVaf1Vp uMsXWiddJH1/TKGshw+OKf3+ftWYnuu0ZVLNBzO8Iiq1YEPrXnIShX0l38OGMvj+ nMNbD+SZvltYnyi2Z9YQpOl6orTa1qGO/DJS8RnUzqUe1SUds8W9XyQiZF3IedJq EB0hTKclv4HmG/qO9neBgh4edH99QiAD1xVeLX24EMWmQuYK4UlQCDOuAZVNjOfA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudehtddggeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffujgfkfhggtgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhephfhinhhnucfv hhgrihhnuceofhhthhgrihhnsehlihhnuhigqdhmieekkhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepffduhfegfedvieetudfgleeugeehkeekfeevfffhieevteelvdfhtdevffet uedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepfh hthhgrihhnsehlihhnuhigqdhmieekkhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:38:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:38:13 +1000 (AEST) From: Finn Thain To: Michael Schmitz cc: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Mainline kernel crashes, was Re: RFC: remove set_fs for m68k In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <189062a2-2b82-8185-2a5b-75a9282dca79@linux-m68k.org> References: <20210721170529.GA14550@lst.de> <755e55ba-4ce2-b4e4-a628-5abc183a557a@linux-m68k.org> <31f27da7-be60-8eb-9834-748b653c2246@linux-m68k.org> <977bb34f-6de9-3a9e-818f-b1aa0758f78f@gmail.com> <42b30d4f-b871-51ea-1b0e-479f4fe096eb@gmail.com> <7ac7a41a-53f9-b13c-83fa-2c6b8ef2b90@linux-m68k.org> <0477f373-86c9-dacb-a7b1-25fe4b3befd3@gmail.com> <2c624213-6a4-799c-45e-a1be578dd5f@linux-m68k.org> <82f6f161-b9e0-bf9b-3c20-aa2ce810d99a@gmail.com> <4564a46-2115-9058-2a9-2d77736291c@linux-m68k.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > > > > Incidentally - have you ever checked whether Al Viro's signal > > > handling fixes have an impact on these bugs? > > > > > > > I will try that patch series if you think it is related. > > Initial tests look promising (but I've said that before). > Here's what I found in recent tests on my Quadra 630. The usual stress-ng panic can happen without list corruption, even with local_irq_save/restore() added to do_IRQ(). The panic did not show up at all during stress tests with Al's signal handling patch series. I think my results are consistent with yours. The kernel's 'memtest' didn't detect any bad DRAM but it isn't particularly thorough so I'm running some tests with memtester-4.5.1.