Re: General protection fault in iscsi_rx_thread_pre_handler

["Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>]

Hi Gavin,

On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 08:28 +0800, Gavin Guo wrote:
> Hi Nicholas,
> 
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Gavin Guo <gavin.guo@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi Nicholas,
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
> > <nab@linux-iscsi.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 09:30 +0800, Gavin Guo wrote:
> >>> Hi Nicholas,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
> >>> <nab@linux-iscsi.org> wrote:
> >>> > On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 23:56 +0800, Gavin Guo wrote:
> >>> >> Hi Nicolas,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger

<SNIP>

> >>> >> > At the time, a different set of iser-target related changes ended up
> >>> >> > avoiding this issue on his particular setup, so we thought it was likely
> >>> >> > a race triggered by login failures specific to iser-target code.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > There was a untested patch (included inline below) to drop the legacy
> >>> >> > active_ts_list usage all-together, but IIRC he was not able to reproduce
> >>> >> > further so the patch didn't get picked up for mainline.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > If your able to reliability reproduce, please try with the following
> >>> >> > patch and let us know your progress.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks for your time reading the mail. I'll let you know the result.
> >>> >
> >>> > Just curious, are you able to reliability reproduce this bug in a VM..?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your caring, the machine is on the customer side, I've
> >>> asked and now waiting for their response.
> >>
> >> Hi Gavin,
> >>
> >> Just curious if there has been any update on this yet..?
> >>
> >> --nab
> >>
> >
> > Really thanks for your attention. I'm also currently waiting for the
> > customer's reply and will send the email again to ask for the result.
> > However, I think the symptom may be hard to replicate that's why the
> > customer didn't reply me for a long time. Thanks for your time again.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gavin
> 
> Sorry for making you wait so long. I just got the response from the
> customer, they said the general protection fault happened just 2 times
> in the past and cannot be reliably reproduced. And I am now waiting
> for the verification test.
> 

Just a heads up that I'm planning to include this patch in the v3.20-rc1
PULL request.

Please let me know if you have any objections.

Thank you,

--nab