On 2024-12-03 12:54:54+0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 7:51 AM Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > (+Cc Sebastian) > > > > Hi Chaitanya, > > > > On 2024-12-03 05:07:47+0000, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote: > > > Hope you are doing well. I am Chaitanya from the linux graphics team in Intel. > > > > > > This mail is regarding a regression we are seeing in our CI runs[1] on linux-next repository. > > > > Thanks for the report. > > > > > Since the version next-20241120 [2], we are seeing the following regression > > > > > > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > > > <4>[ 19.990743] Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xb11675ef8d1ccbce: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI > > > <4>[ 19.990760] CPU: 21 UID: 110 PID: 867 Comm: prometheus-node Not tainted 6.12.0-next-20241120-next-20241120-gac24e26aa08f+ #1 > > > <4>[ 19.990771] Hardware name: Intel Corporation Arrow Lake Client Platform/MTL-S UDIMM 2DPC EVCRB, BIOS MTLSFWI1.R00.4400.D85.2410100007 10/10/2024 > > > <4>[ 19.990782] RIP: 0010:power_supply_get_property+0x3e/0xe0 > > > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > > > Details log can be found in [3]. > > > > > > After bisecting the tree, the following patch [4] seems to be the first "bad" > > > commit > > > > > > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > > > Commit 49000fee9e639f62ba1f965ed2ae4c5ad18d19e2 > > > Author: Thomas Weißschuh <mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > AuthorDate: Sat Oct 5 12:05:03 2024 +0200 > > > Commit: Sebastian Reichel <mailto:sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > CommitDate: Tue Oct 15 22:22:20 2024 +0200 > > > power: supply: core: add wakeup source inhibit by power_supply_config > > > ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` > > > > > > This is now seen in our drm-tip runs as well. [5] > > > > > > Could you please check why the patch causes this regression and provide a fix if necessary? > > > > I don't see how this patch can lead to this error. > > It looks like the cfg->no_wakeup_source access reaches beyond the > struct boundary for some reason. But the access to this field is only done in __power_supply_register(). The error reports however don't show this function at all, they come from power_supply_uevent() and power_supply_get_property() by which time the call to __power_supply_register() is long over. FWIW there is an uninitialized 'struct power_supply_config' in drivers/hid/hid-corsair-void.c. But I highly doubt the test machines are using that. (I'll send a patch later for it) > > Could you doublecheck the bisect? > > > > Note: Having line numbers in the trace would be very useful. > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Chaitanya > > > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > P.S. We could not revert the patch cleanly and therefore we are yet to verify the bisect but we are currently working on it. > > > > > > > > > [1] https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/linux-next/combined-alt.html? > > > [2]https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?h=next-20241120 > > > [3] https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/linux-next/next-20241120/bat-arls-6/boot0.txt > > > [4] https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-tip/commit/?id=49000fee9e639f62ba1f965ed2ae4c5ad18d19e2 > > > [5] https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/index.html? > >
