Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 26 [ bluetooth on suspend/resume ]

From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
	Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>,
	Linux PM List <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 26 [ bluetooth on suspend/resume ]
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:04:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130426220427.GE1433@mtj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+icZUVWRkP_fxTH22ywx9Ntnnp1xW_2dVRjwTvBfs0eJBcEVg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > The second argument %rsi is zero, which got transferred to %r13 and
> > then offset deref on it trapped.
> >
> > The second argument is @wq and the oopsing code is the wq->flags deref
> > in the following if condition.
> >
> >         /* if dying, only works from the same workqueue are allowed */
> >         if (unlikely(wq->flags & __WQ_DRAINING) &&
> >                 WARN_ON_ONCE(!is_chained_work(wq)))
> >                 return;
> >
> > So, umm, don't pass in NULL as @wq. :)
> >
> 
> Do you have a patch for this?

Heh, I haven't even looked at the caller.  It's a bug on the workqueue
user side.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun