On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 14:46 +0300, Binyamin Sharet wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Binyamin Sharet <s.binyamin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > Thanks Oliver, will do. > > > > -- Binyamin > > I compiled the kernel without BPF and still got an issue (attached) > How can I verify the BPF is not enabled/part of the kernel? Do you have CONFIG_BPF_JIT enabled? 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
