On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > 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?
Nope, nothing odd before or after. Thanks, Sasha -- 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/
