Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762598Ab3DCGtq (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2013 02:49:46 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:44155 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762516Ab3DCGtp (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2013 02:49:45 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: David Howells , CAI Qian Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, LKML Subject: Re: NULL pointer at kset_find_obj In-Reply-To: <19926.1364924330@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <1484037905.443048.1364884090669.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <19926.1364924330@warthog.procyon.org.uk> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.14 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:40:13 +1030 Message-ID: <874nfo5em2.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1830 Lines: 41 David Howells writes: > CAI Qian wrote: > >> Just booted the latest mainline, >> >> [ 35.217698] Request for unknown module key 'Magrathea: Glacier signing >> key: 8b7774b08bc4ee9637073434c10f0823f6fbe523' err -11 > > Can you check back earlier in the dmesg to see whether the kernel tried to > load the key? -11 is presumably -EAGAIN - in which case no such key was found > (rather than there being a cached lookup failure which is what -ENOKEY would > indicate). It is possible that you encountered the key-not-yet-valid problem > due to your h/w clock showing a value prior to the start date on the key. > >> [ 35.218511] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffffa03093f0 >> [ 35.218521] IP: [] kset_find_obj+0x30/0x80 >> ... >> [ 35.218575] Call Trace: >> [ 35.218583] [] load_module+0xb0d/0x1b00 >> [ 35.218587] [] ? ddebug_proc_open+0xc0/0xc0 >> [ 35.218593] [] ? page_fault+0x28/0x30 >> [ 35.218596] [] sys_init_module+0xd7/0x120 >> [ 35.218601] [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > I think this bit should be waved in front of Rusty. It looks like it might be > a bug in error handling code. It does look like it, but I can't see it. The module code doesn't see an error (presumably sig_enforce is false), so we continue processing the module like normal. Is the module getting corrupted somehow? I don't think the signing infrastructure is doing it... Puzzled, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/