Hi, On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 01:52:53PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On Monday 05 September 2011 18:44:39 Michael Büsch wrote: > > On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:11:43 +0200 > > > > Felix Fietkau <n...@openwrt.org> wrote: > > > > I am still wondering how enabling preempt could possibly > > > > workaround/hide an alignment bug. sounds strange to me. Does somebody > > > > have an idea? > > > > > > > > I didn't look too closely at the function yet, though. > > > > > > Look at "BadVA : 6fbb600f" - it's not an alignment bug, the address is > > > completely bogus. It just happens to trip on the unhandled unaligned > > > access first because of the lowest bits. > > > This looks like a nasty memory corruption bug, and hiding it with > > > CONFIG_PREEMPT probably eventually makes it show up somewhere else > > > instead. > > > > Ok, that makes sense. > > > > So instead of enabling preempt, it would be a way better idea to enable > > various kernel memory debugging options (probably also lockdep) to track > > this down. > > It looks like this thread stalled here. Luka, have you been able to run a > kernel with lockdep enabled to see what is going one here?
I'll try to do it this week, I'll also send mail to netdev as you suggested... Luka _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
