On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:50 +0300, Binyamin Sharet wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Oliver Neukum <oneu...@suse.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 09:53 +0300, Binyamin Sharet wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Malcolm Priestley <tvbox...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> Malcolm, just to make it clear, this bug was not found with an
> >> actual device, but with emulation.
> > It was quite peculiar a bug, though. Could you prepare a test kernel
> > without BPF?
> > Regards
> > Oliver
> If this question was directed to me, I will need some clarification
> of what is needed (and also - what's BPF?)
BPF = Berkeley Packet Filter (a mechanism to filter packets going over a
The oops you reproduced was in the BPF. That is rather generic code
without connection to the driver in question. That raises the question
whether you've accidentally triggered a generic bug.
To rule that out a rerun on a kernel compiled without CONFIG_BPF would
be useful. Or you could build an initrd with the BPF modules
blacklisted, so we are sure the test system does not use BPF.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html