From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5995C606D1 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 20:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22192173E for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 20:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2405205AbfGHUxM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:53:12 -0400 Received: from mx2.cyber.ee ([193.40.6.72]:47343 "EHLO mx2.cyber.ee" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732038AbfGHUxM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:53:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [bisected] "mm/vmalloc: Add flag for freeing of special permsissions" corrupts memory on ia64 To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "linux-ia64@lists.kernel.org" Cc: "namit@vmware.com" , "Hansen, Dave" References: <096ddb2cfbe83309396c48e75648889cae68e672.camel@intel.com> From: Meelis Roos Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 23:53:07 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <096ddb2cfbe83309396c48e75648889cae68e672.camel@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: et-EE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I am out of the office and don't have access to this hardware either. I > will try to find someone at Intel that does to speed this up. In the > meantime I can send you a logging patch to do some sanity checks if you > are able to run it. I am also cut off from testing anything - it seems the air conditioning unit in my test site has failked for good now and the earliest I can test anything is next week. > I think I found your earlier mail, and it said 5.2-rc1 did not show the > problem. I guess this wasn't the case after further testing, but 5.1 > continued to be problem free? Yes, 5.2-rc1 was problematic in retesting, and 5.1 was OK. I also started suspecting binutils upgrade meanwhile - I upgraded binutils to 2.31.1-p5 in Gentoo right after booting into 5.1, but the bisection results were finally consistent so I did not look into binutils versions further. gcc has not changed for me recently. -- Meelis Roos