On 09/24/2013 05:29 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > 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, > We also tested the 3.12-rc2 kernel, but it also produces an oops and lockup. In case it's of use, the 3.12-rc2 oops can be seen at: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/151359441/kern.log -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
