3.18-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
>
3.18-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a
4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
>
4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a
4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
>
4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
Please try this patch.
---8<---
Subject: netlink:
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
Please try this patch.
---8<---
Subject: netlink: Annotate nlk cb_mutex by
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
Please try this patch.
---8<---
Subject: netlink:
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
Please try this patch.
---8<---
Subject: netlink: Annotate nlk cb_mutex by
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
Please try this patch.
---8<---
Subject: netlink:
From: Herbert Xu
[ Upstream commit 8a0f5ccfb33b0b8b51de65b7b3bf342ba10b4fb6 ]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
Please try this patch.
---8<---
Subject: netlink: Annotate nlk cb_mutex by
On (03/15/17 10:08), Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> After I've applied the patch these reports stopped to happen, and I
> have not seem any other reports that look relevant.
> However, it there was one, but it looks like a different issue and it
> was probably masked by massive amounts of original
On (03/15/17 10:08), Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> After I've applied the patch these reports stopped to happen, and I
> have not seem any other reports that look relevant.
> However, it there was one, but it looks like a different issue and it
> was probably masked by massive amounts of original
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
> On (03/14/17 09:14), Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Another one now involving rds_tcp_listen_stop
>:
>> kworker/u4:1/19 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.+.}, at: [] lock_sock
>>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Sowmini Varadhan
wrote:
> On (03/14/17 09:14), Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Another one now involving rds_tcp_listen_stop
>:
>> kworker/u4:1/19 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.+.}, at: [] lock_sock
>> include/net/sock.h:1460 [inline]
>>
On (03/14/17 09:14), Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Another one now involving rds_tcp_listen_stop
:
> kworker/u4:1/19 is trying to acquire lock:
> (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.+.}, at: [] lock_sock
> include/net/sock.h:1460 [inline]
> (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.+.}, at: []
> rds_tcp_listen_stop+0x5c/0x150
On (03/14/17 09:14), Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Another one now involving rds_tcp_listen_stop
:
> kworker/u4:1/19 is trying to acquire lock:
> (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.+.}, at: [] lock_sock
> include/net/sock.h:1460 [inline]
> (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.+.}, at: []
> rds_tcp_listen_stop+0x5c/0x150
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Herbert Xu
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> Yes, please.
>> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
>
> Please try this patch.
Applied on bots. I should have a conclusion
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Herbert Xu
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> Yes, please.
>> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
>
> Please try this patch.
Applied on bots. I should have a conclusion within a day.
Thanks!
>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
Please try this patch.
---8<---
Subject: netlink: Annotate nlk cb_mutex by protocol
Currently all occurences of nlk->cb_mutex are annotated by lockdep
as a
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Yes, please.
> Disregarding some reports is not a good way long term.
Please try this patch.
---8<---
Subject: netlink: Annotate nlk cb_mutex by protocol
Currently all occurences of nlk->cb_mutex are annotated by lockdep
as a
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Herbert Xu
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 04:08:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> -> #1 (genl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
>>validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2267 [inline]
>>__lock_acquire+0x2149/0x3430
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Herbert Xu
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 04:08:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> -> #1 (genl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
>>validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2267 [inline]
>>__lock_acquire+0x2149/0x3430 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3340
>>
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 06:36:12PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> > -> #1 (genl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> >validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2267 [inline]
> >__lock_acquire+0x2149/0x3430 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3340
> >lock_acquire+0x2a1/0x630 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3755
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 06:36:12PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> > -> #1 (genl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> >validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2267 [inline]
> >__lock_acquire+0x2149/0x3430 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3340
> >lock_acquire+0x2a1/0x630 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3755
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 04:08:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> -> #1 (genl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
>validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2267 [inline]
>__lock_acquire+0x2149/0x3430 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3340
>lock_acquire+0x2a1/0x630 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3755
>
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 04:08:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> -> #1 (genl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
>validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2267 [inline]
>__lock_acquire+0x2149/0x3430 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3340
>lock_acquire+0x2a1/0x630 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3755
>
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am getting the following deadlock reports while
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am getting the following deadlock reports while running syzkaller
>>> fuzzer on
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am getting the following deadlock reports while running syzkaller
>> fuzzer on net-next/8d70eeb84ab277377c017af6a21d0a337025dede:
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am getting the following deadlock reports while running syzkaller
>> fuzzer on net-next/8d70eeb84ab277377c017af6a21d0a337025dede:
>>
>>
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am getting the following deadlock reports while running syzkaller
> fuzzer on net-next/8d70eeb84ab277377c017af6a21d0a337025dede:
>
> ==
> [ INFO: possible
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am getting the following deadlock reports while running syzkaller
> fuzzer on net-next/8d70eeb84ab277377c017af6a21d0a337025dede:
>
> ==
> [ INFO: possible circular locking
Hello,
I am getting the following deadlock reports while running syzkaller
fuzzer on net-next/8d70eeb84ab277377c017af6a21d0a337025dede:
==
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
4.10.0+ #5 Not tainted
Hello,
I am getting the following deadlock reports while running syzkaller
fuzzer on net-next/8d70eeb84ab277377c017af6a21d0a337025dede:
==
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
4.10.0+ #5 Not tainted
36 matches
Mail list logo