Re: Possible Bug in 3.8.0rc4 kernel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Holcombe, Christopher
<cholcomb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [21084.500064] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8107a4af>]  [<ffffffff8107a4af>] __cancel_work_timer+0x8f/0xa0

...

> [21084.500064]  [<ffffffff8107a4f0>] cancel_work_sync+0x10/0x20
> [21084.500064]  [<ffffffffa008ddaa>] core_tmr_abort_task+0x17a/0x240 [target_core_mod]

You're crashing in the cancel_work_sync() in core_tmr_abort_task():

    cancel_work_sync(&se_cmd->work);

I've noticed that before -- as far as I can see, there's no guarantee
that the work item in se_cmd has been initialized at that point.
Perhaps the right fix is to add something like

    INIT_WORK(&cmd->work, NULL);

to transport_init_se_cmd() ?

 - R.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux SCSI]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux