On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:22:18 +0100,
Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> > This looks like a false-positive report to me. Of course, we should
> >> > annotate the mutex there for nested locks, though.
> >>
> >>
> >> Takashi, can you please annotate it
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> > This looks like a false-positive report to me. Of course, we should
>> > annotate the mutex there for nested locks, though.
>>
>>
>> Takashi, can you please annotate it for lockdep? I hit it on every run.
>
> The lock had an annotation but
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:23:55 +0100,
Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:44:34 +0100,
> > Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> While running syzkaller fuzzer I've got the following lockdep report:
> >>
> >> ==
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:44:34 +0100,
> Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> While running syzkaller fuzzer I've got the following lockdep report:
>>
>> ==
>> [ INFO: possible circular lock
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 10:44:34 +0100,
Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> While running syzkaller fuzzer I've got the following lockdep report:
>
> ==
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 4.4.0+ #276 Not tainted
> -
Hello,
While running syzkaller fuzzer I've got the following lockdep report:
==
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
4.4.0+ #276 Not tainted
---
syz-executor/21025 is trying
6 matches
Mail list logo