From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net (004.mia.mailroute.net [199.89.3.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1A712D248A; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 19:21:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755631268; cv=none; b=IK3u2OQxQna8Ct7nn7tfxdwFtQVPFPNPzrN4VqxObKHV6SUPejAlPTvkvuepHAH6L0FFOSFQ3xYYcUInZNxsClGQeUmt+tBulspWYBj8R6uVH5khROkLF7EnMroZP9mkmH+Aq3O1csMNSh9/P/UvPPzZfcszZIZFUbYUO0dJP/c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755631268; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tOGoJFPH16Dim7LwFxXMTdrj4KdFpOiw6TPs3YcSlrQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=FOzBj/efI7+LLZaptRvTFC5okxxKJiFrLvEKxXji6Nv9rMi+CNi8/p5b6KRbvti7Fsd0WteEL0LEuFc7SlFHjEeYMBDvk1fasNxrfl0GuvxT67xcZM6a3kwDuf8Gbx4738bR53Ht6RS8AgUuF8G/sHeo8GgiD9yaus12+8rd9qs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=zI3ZRqRA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="zI3ZRqRA" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4c5zvZ1cBFzm1748; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 19:20:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1755631256; x=1758223257; bh=pRzdCfFjYk8Vdokz4fCzqwUQ FMX4J9WA10x/e7yFMmA=; b=zI3ZRqRA0iRGYMbIaM0u0d65VEJ4b74Nt6gQEKOy mPuN5UuTA4jNxYd55Cf5heyBeKyYBTKAI6E4EAKDfUtiOh+EHE68Kptk/7AXSwFO KV0016uuhuj13JPOtIA1UYL7eXFivjiS/UnUNdpLxgrEUFfVytz375Q0WrEe+S92 RWhaZ8YHhY7FMiNIujQTybTLXHfc2Av4hGcu/aVL0zogtRH6CrlNHYUKVdneaKa8 LDzFFDvJ+alRqap+F+Y4c3OGaxFgJ5ccsP1uJ+87pkCEkByBCb/SRq1G8b4ebFPS 9specoeAuije11jgih2O+lgiD+AMcBVaSpD+jn/x6zS7mg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (004.mia [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id w_oA_IcGjZ7N; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 19:20:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.66.154.22] (unknown [104.135.204.82]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4c5zvT1nX9zm1743; Tue, 19 Aug 2025 19:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <2899b7cb-106b-48dc-890f-9cc80f1d1f8b@acm.org> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:20:51 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [BUG] general protection fault when connecting an old mp3/usb device To: phil@philpotter.co.uk Cc: David Wang <00107082@163.com>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com References: <20250818095008.6473-1-00107082@163.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20250818095008.6473-1-00107082@163.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/18/25 2:50 AM, David Wang wrote: > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x2e2e2f2e2e2f308e: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] Call Trace: > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] sr_do_ioctl+0x5b/0x1c0 [sr_mod] > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] sr_packet+0x2c/0x50 [sr_mod] > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] cdrom_get_disc_info+0x60/0xe0 [cdrom] > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] cdrom_mrw_exit+0x29/0xb0 [cdrom] > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] ? xa_destroy+0xaa/0x120 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] unregister_cdrom+0x76/0xc0 [cdrom] > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] sr_free_disk+0x44/0x50 [sr_mod] > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] disk_release+0xb0/0xe0 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] device_release+0x37/0x90 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] kobject_put+0x8e/0x1d0 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] blkdev_release+0x11/0x20 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] __fput+0xe3/0x2a0 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] task_work_run+0x59/0x90 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] exit_to_user_mode_loop+0xd6/0xe0 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] do_syscall_64+0x1c1/0x1e0 > [Sat Aug 23 03:56:09 2025] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e Phillip, is this behavior perhaps introduced by commit 5ec9d26b78c4 ("cdrom: Call cdrom_mrw_exit from cdrom_release function")? Please do not call code that invokes ioctls from the disk_release() callback. Thanks, Bart.