On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Joseph Salisbury wrote: > >> Can you explain a little further? Mark commit a4a23f6 as bad? An > >> initial bisect already reported that was the first bad commit, so it > >> can't be marked bad. The oops on memcpy() happens after commit a4a23f6 > >> is reverted. The oops on memcpy() did not happen before a4a23f6 was > >> committed, so I assume this new oops was introduced by a change later. > >> > >> Right now I'm bisecting down the oops on memcpy() by updating the bisect > >> with good or bad, depending if the test kernel hit the oops. I then > >> revert a4a23f6, so that revert is the HEAD of the tree each time before > >> building the kernel again(As long as the commit spit out by bisect is > >> after when a4a23f6 was introduced). > > Yep. Please continue bisecting the memcpy() oops. > > > > kmemdup() is just a kzalloc() followed by a memcpy(). When we split it > > apart by reverting the patch then we would expect the oops to move to > > the memcpy() part. Somehow "desc" is a bogus pointer, but I don't > > immediately see how that is possible. > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > Thanks for the details. We'll continue the bisect and let you know how > it goes. Did this please yield any useful result? Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
