From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: LKP <lkp@01.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [clear_page] 0ad07c8104 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000040
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 07:29:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170218232950.picqhk2xlmx3uh4l@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170218144759.bqdy3ugj45uh36zc@pd.tnic>
Hi Borislav,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 03:48:00PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>Guys,
>
>please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.
>
>On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
>>
>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
>
>Can you make this point to the actual commit on github?
>
>Your tree there has currently 47K branches and navigating through the
>web interface takes forever.
Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll be
showed as this in future:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
>> commit 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc
>> Author: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>> AuthorDate: Thu Feb 9 20:51:25 2017 +0100
>> Commit: 0day robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
>> CommitDate: Fri Feb 10 05:30:58 2017 +0800
>>
>> x86: Optimize clear_page()
>>
>> Currently, we CALL clear_page() which then JMPs to the proper function
>> chosen by the alternatives.
>>
>> What we should do instead is CALL the proper function directly. (This
>> was something Ingo suggested a while ago). So let's do that.
>>
>> Measuring our favourite kernel build workload shows that there are no
>> significant changes in performance.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>
>Then, this is an old patch. You already sent me a bug report, I replied
>with a fix but you didn't test the fix. Instead you're sending the same
>old report.
Sorry the 2nd report was send out manually and I only checked the
emails in my _current_ mbox. Since the previous report email has been
archived, it slipped through the duplication check.
>Here's the fix: https://lists.01.org/pipermail/lkp/2017-February/005573.html
>
>And the upstream submission of the new version:
>
>https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170215111927.emdgxf2pide3kwro@pd.tnic
>
>Please fix the bot to pay attention to replies. If there is a special
>way I should reply with a fix so that the bot retests with the same
>config, please let me know.
CC Xiaolong. It's possible to automate the test-of-fixup-patches.
Firstly find out the original email report by the Message-ID being
replied to. Then fetch all the information required for deciding where
the patch should be applied to, parameters to auto-testing the patch.
>In general, I think it would be a very cool idea to be able to reply to
>the bot and say, "Dear bot, can you test this fix ontop with the exact
>same guest, vm, kernel .config etc.
>
>That would be lovely.
Yeah we have a TODO to do email based on-demand service, which looks
close to your proposal.
>Thanks and keep up the good work!
Thanks,
Fengguang
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [clear_page] 0ad07c8104 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000040
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 07:29:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170218232950.picqhk2xlmx3uh4l@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170218144759.bqdy3ugj45uh36zc@pd.tnic>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2940 bytes --]
Hi Borislav,
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 03:48:00PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>Guys,
>
>please fix the 0day bot reporting. See below for more info.
>
>On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 01:01:53PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
>>
>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
>
>Can you make this point to the actual commit on github?
>
>Your tree there has currently 47K branches and navigating through the
>web interface takes forever.
Good point! I noticed it too while sending out the report. It'll be
showed as this in future:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Borislav-Petkov/x86-Optimize-clear_page/20170210-053052
>> commit 0ad07c8104eb5c12dfcb86581c1cc657183496cc
>> Author: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>> AuthorDate: Thu Feb 9 20:51:25 2017 +0100
>> Commit: 0day robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
>> CommitDate: Fri Feb 10 05:30:58 2017 +0800
>>
>> x86: Optimize clear_page()
>>
>> Currently, we CALL clear_page() which then JMPs to the proper function
>> chosen by the alternatives.
>>
>> What we should do instead is CALL the proper function directly. (This
>> was something Ingo suggested a while ago). So let's do that.
>>
>> Measuring our favourite kernel build workload shows that there are no
>> significant changes in performance.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>
>Then, this is an old patch. You already sent me a bug report, I replied
>with a fix but you didn't test the fix. Instead you're sending the same
>old report.
Sorry the 2nd report was send out manually and I only checked the
emails in my _current_ mbox. Since the previous report email has been
archived, it slipped through the duplication check.
>Here's the fix: https://lists.01.org/pipermail/lkp/2017-February/005573.html
>
>And the upstream submission of the new version:
>
>https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170215111927.emdgxf2pide3kwro(a)pd.tnic
>
>Please fix the bot to pay attention to replies. If there is a special
>way I should reply with a fix so that the bot retests with the same
>config, please let me know.
CC Xiaolong. It's possible to automate the test-of-fixup-patches.
Firstly find out the original email report by the Message-ID being
replied to. Then fetch all the information required for deciding where
the patch should be applied to, parameters to auto-testing the patch.
>In general, I think it would be a very cool idea to be able to reply to
>the bot and say, "Dear bot, can you test this fix ontop with the exact
>same guest, vm, kernel .config etc.
>
>That would be lovely.
Yeah we have a TODO to do email based on-demand service, which looks
close to your proposal.
>Thanks and keep up the good work!
Thanks,
Fengguang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-18 23:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-18 5:01 [clear_page] 0ad07c8104 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000040 Fengguang Wu
2017-02-18 14:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-18 14:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-18 23:29 ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
2017-02-18 23:29 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-02-19 0:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-19 0:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-19 1:06 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-02-19 1:06 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-02-19 13:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-19 13:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-20 3:03 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-02-20 3:03 ` Fengguang Wu
2017-02-20 9:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-20 9:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-02-21 0:00 ` email/patch test requests to 0day robot Fengguang Wu
2017-02-21 0:00 ` Fengguang Wu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170218232950.picqhk2xlmx3uh4l@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.