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,
On 01.12.2012 18:59, Peter Hurley wrote:
(cc'ing Ilya Zykov i...@ilyx.ru 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
[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
> >
[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
(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:
(cc'ing Ilya Zykov i...@ilyx.ru 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
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 subsequent
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
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 11/02/2012 05:07 PM,
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 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 Fri, Nov 2, 2012
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
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 11/03/2012 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 jsl...@suse.cz wrote:
On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
So you probably want a lot more than 100k syscalls, why
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 jsl...@suse.cz wrote:
On 10/31/2012 04:59 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
So you
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 jsl...@suse.cz wrote:
On 10/31/2012
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
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
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...
>>
>>>
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
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 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 Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby jsl...@suse.cz 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
On 11/02/2012 05:07 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Jiri Slaby jsl...@suse.cz 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 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 jsl...@suse.cz 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
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 jsl...@suse.cz 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
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
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
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
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
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
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jiri Slaby jsl...@suse.cz 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
On 10/31/2012 04:30 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jiri Slaby jsl...@suse.cz 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
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 jsl...@suse.cz 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
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 | |
>| |
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 | |
| | \
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.
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 | |
| | \ / / | |
| '-,.__ =\/ ,-`
42 matches
Mail list logo