On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:50 +0300, Binyamin Sharet wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 09:53 +0300, Binyamin Sharet wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> Malcolm, just to make it clear, this bug was not found with an > >> actual device, but with emulation. > > > > It was quite peculiar a bug, though. Could you prepare a test kernel > > without BPF? > > > > Regards > > Oliver > > > > > > Oliver, > > If this question was directed to me, I will need some clarification > of what is needed (and also - what's BPF?) BPF = Berkeley Packet Filter (a mechanism to filter packets going over a socket) The oops you reproduced was in the BPF. That is rather generic code without connection to the driver in question. That raises the question whether you've accidentally triggered a generic bug. To rule that out a rerun on a kernel compiled without CONFIG_BPF would be useful. Or you could build an initrd with the BPF modules blacklisted, so we are sure the test system does not use BPF. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
