On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > [ 543.999079] Call Trace: >> > [ 543.999079] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52) >> > [ 543.999079] lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4259) >> > [ 543.999079] atomic_notifier_call_chain (include/linux/rcupdate.h:892 >> > kernel/notifier.c:182 kernel/notifier.c:193) >> > [ 543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:192) >> > [ 543.999079] notify_die (kernel/notifier.c:538) >> > [ 543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:538) >> > [ 543.999079] ? debug_smp_processor_id (lib/smp_processor_id.c:57) >> > [ 543.999079] do_debug (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:652) >> > [ 543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2609) >> > [ 543.999079] ? do_int3 (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:610) >> > [ 543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2554 >> > kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2601) >> > [ 543.999079] debug (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:1310) >> >> I don't know how to read this stack trace. Are we in do_int3, >> do_debug, or both? I didn't change do_debug at all. > > It looks like we're in do_debug. do_int3 is only on the stack but not > part of the current frame if I can trust the '?' ... >
It's possible that an int3 happened and I did something wrong on return that caused a subsequent do_debug to screw up, but I don't see how my patch would have caused that. Were there any earlier log messages? --Andy -- 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/
