On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:06:50PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 03:16:55PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > I don't think the stack tracing code could do anything better here. #3
> > and #4 seem like an issue with the scheduler, it doesn't realize the
> > rest of the CPU
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 03:16:55PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> I don't think the stack tracing code could do anything better here. #3
> and #4 seem like an issue with the scheduler, it doesn't realize the
> rest of the CPUs have all been taken offline due to the panic().
So maybe teach the WAR
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:40:42PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:51:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > This version looks ok to me. I'm sure there's room for tweaking here,
> > but I'm not seeing anything alarming.
>
> So I'm redoing the series ontop of 17-rc1 and I
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:51:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> This version looks ok to me. I'm sure there's room for tweaking here,
> but I'm not seeing anything alarming.
So I'm redoing the series ontop of 17-rc1 and I see a *lot* of output
during testing. For example:
1) is from the userspa
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> here's v2 with the dumpstack cleanups. This one gets rid of code_bytes=
> as it was discussed last time. As a result, the code got even leaner and
> simpler. I like that. :)
This version looks ok to me. I'm sure there's room for tweaking
5 matches
Mail list logo
