[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-05-01 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From pavra...@in.ibm.com 2018-05-02 01:02 EDT--- (In reply to comment #28) > I tried to reproduce this on my machine and I was not able to. I am using > kernel 4.15.0-20-generic and I run: > > # ltp-install pwd > /home/breno/ltp-install > > # ltp-install sudo ./runltp > > Is

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-30 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From bren...@br.ibm.com 2018-04-30 15:20 EDT--- I tried to reproduce this on my machine and I was not able to. I am using kernel 4.15.0-20-generic and I run: # ltp-install pwd /home/breno/ltp-install # ltp-install sudo ./runltp Is there any other way to reproduce it? --

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-24 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From kalsh...@in.ibm.com 2018-04-24 02:38 EDT--- (In reply to comment #26) > There are two different panics being shown here. One is the kernel assert in > usercopy.c, the other is the crash in qla2xxx. You should not be using one > bug to handle two different issues. If the

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-19 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From dougm...@us.ibm.com 2018-04-19 06:51 EDT--- There are two different panics being shown here. One is the kernel assert in usercopy.c, the other is the crash in qla2xxx. You should not be using one bug to handle two different issues. If the kernel assert is no longer

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-19 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From pavra...@in.ibm.com 2018-04-19 04:19 EDT--- Crash is observed even on rc7 kernel. [10423.094236] LTP: starting ftest07 [10423.483052] LTP: starting ftest08 [10423.580683] LTP: starting lftest01 (lftest 100) [10423.659185] LTP: starting writetest01 (writetest)

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-17 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From dougm...@us.ibm.com 2018-04-17 13:13 EDT--- The logs show some "read_all" process - presumably part of the test suite - that is trying to read kernel text memory (via /dev/mem) and triggering the BUG. Not clear if the attempt should have been failed gracefully or not.

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-17 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From dougm...@us.ibm.com 2018-04-17 09:47 EDT--- Note, the logs are showing a kernel assert (BUG), not a crash. The assert is that something is wrong with the address/length being used to copy data in/out of userspace. We need to look closer at what is being done by the test

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-17 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From pavra...@in.ibm.com 2018-04-17 05:15 EDT--- (In reply to comment #20) > Can you next test -rc5 and -rc7: > > v.16-rc5: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v4.16-rc5/ > v.16-rc7: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v4.16-rc7/ Issue is observed with

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-12 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From pavra...@in.ibm.com 2018-04-12 04:19 EDT--- (In reply to comment #18) > If this issue still also exists on v4.16-rc4, we would also want to test > some of the newer release candidates, such as -rc5, -rc6, etc. Issue is observed even with -rc4. [10700.354365] LTP:

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-11 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From pavra...@in.ibm.com 2018-04-11 08:10 EDT--- (In reply to comment #14) > I'd like to perform a "Reverse" bisect to figure out what commit fixes this > bug. We need to identify the last kernel version that had the bug, and the > first kernel version that fixed the bug. > >

[Kernel-packages] [Bug 1761729] Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla

2018-04-09 Thread bugproxy
--- Comment From pavra...@in.ibm.com 2018-04-09 07:27 EDT--- (In reply to comment #12) > Did this issue start happening after an update/upgrade? Was there a prior > kernel version where you were not having this particular problem? > > Would it be possible for you to test the latest