On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:37:10PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >@@ -641,7 +641,7 @@ no_context(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long
> >error_code,
> >
> > /* Are we prepared to handle this kernel fault? */
> > if (fixup_exception(regs)) {
> >- if (current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error&& signal) {
> >+ if (!in_nmi()&& current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error&&
> >signal) {
> > tsk->thread.trap_nr = X86_TRAP_PF;
> > tsk->thread.error_code = error_code | PF_USER;
> > tsk->thread.cr2 = address;
>
> Yes, this change fixed the error that I got. I no longer see SIGSEGV when I
> run the test.
Awesome, just send a more elaborate version that should have the same
effect.
> I did tried to back out your "perf: Fix arch_perf_out_copy_user default"
> patch, but it didn't fix the problem.
The culprit was: e00b12e64be9 ("perf/x86: Further optimize
copy_from_user_nmi()")
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
