On 01.12.2012 18:59, Peter Hurley wrote:
> (cc'ing Ilya Zykov because the test jig below is based on
> his test program from https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/29/368 -- just want
> to give credit where credit is due)
>
> On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 18:52 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>> Still reproducible,
[whoops... cc: linux-serial]
On Sat, 2012-12-01 at 15:06 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-12-01 at 09:59 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>
> > From instrumenting the tty_release() path, it's clear that tty_buffer
> > work is still scheduled even after tty_release_ldisc() has run. For
> >
On Sat, 2012-12-01 at 09:59 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> From instrumenting the tty_release() path, it's clear that tty_buffer
> work is still scheduled even after tty_release_ldisc() has run. For
> example, with this patch I get the warning below it.
>
> [Further analysis to follow in subseq
(cc'ing Ilya Zykov because the test jig below is based on
his test program from https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/29/368 -- just want
to give credit where credit is due)
On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 18:52 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> Still reproducible, I'm still seeing this with the patch above applied:
On 11/27/2012 02:57 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 20:53 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 11/03/2012 07:06 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2012 11:55 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/03/2012 03:03 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 12:18 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 1
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 20:53 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 11/03/2012 07:06 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 11/03/2012 11:55 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2012 03:03 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>> On 11/02/2012 12:18 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 05:07 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
On 11/03/2012 07:06 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 11/03/2012 11:55 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 11/03/2012 03:03 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2012 12:18 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/02/2012 05:07 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 10/3
On 11/03/2012 11:55 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/03/2012 03:03 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 11/02/2012 12:18 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2012 05:07 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> So you
On 11/03/2012 03:03 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 12:18 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 11/02/2012 05:07 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> So you probably want a lot more than 100k syscalls, why
On 11/02/2012 12:18 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 05:07 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
So you probably want a lot more than 100k syscalls, why limit it at
all actually?
>>>
>>> I unset th
On 11/02/2012 12:18 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 05:07 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
So you probably want a lot more than 100k syscalls, why limit it at
all actually?
>>>
>>> I unset th
On 11/02/2012 05:07 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> So you probably want a lot more than 100k syscalls, why limit it at
>>> all actually?
>>
>> I unset the limit but I still can't reproduce...
>>
>>> I've
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> So you probably want a lot more than 100k syscalls, why limit it at
>> all actually?
>
> I unset the limit but I still can't reproduce...
>
>> I've attached my .config for the guest kernel as referen
On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> So you probably want a lot more than 100k syscalls, why limit it at
> all actually?
I unset the limit but I still can't reproduce...
> I've attached my .config for the guest kernel as reference.
Even using this config does not help to reproduce that.
On 10/31/2012 11:32 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 04:30 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2012 08:02 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools (lkvm) guest with -next kernel
uncovered the following warni
On 10/31/2012 04:30 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 10/25/2012 08:02 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> Fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools (lkvm) guest with -next kernel
>>> uncovered the following warning:
>>
>> I cannot reproduce that :(. Do you sti
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 08:02 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools (lkvm) guest with -next kernel
>> uncovered the following warning:
>
> I cannot reproduce that :(. Do you still see it?
Yes, it reproduces pretty easily while
On 10/25/2012 08:02 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools (lkvm) guest with -next kernel
> uncovered the following warning:
I cannot reproduce that :(. Do you still see it?
> [ 1339.448706] [ cut here ]
> [ 1339.451224] WARNING: at drivers/tty/tt
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> On 10/18/2012 04:26 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > So this is it. The big step why we did all the work over the past
> > kernel releases. Now everything is prepared, so nothing protects us
> > from doing that big step.
> >
> >
Hi guys,
On 10/18/2012 04:26 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> So this is it. The big step why we did all the work over the past
> kernel releases. Now everything is prepared, so nothing protects us
> from doing that big step.
>
>| |\ \ /^l | |
>| |
So this is it. The big step why we did all the work over the past
kernel releases. Now everything is prepared, so nothing protects us
from doing that big step.
| |\ \ /^l | |
| | \ / / | |
| '-,.__ =>\/ ,-`
21 matches
Mail list logo