On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

>>> I don't really know if this is the right solution at all, so please
>>> help me out here... if you want that patch I can send it once
>>> I understand this properly.
>
> IIRC, recent kernels didn't return 0 or any error code when the !policy
> condition was matched. So can you check whether this problem occurs with
> 3.11 or 3.10 as well?

v3.11 works fine.

The problem is not what it returns, the system seems to survive no matter
whether it returns 0 or 17 or whatever.

The problem is that sometimes in the v3.12 kernel cycle we got a
BUG() crash instead of some random value back for calling early.

> So I think we should first identify (bisect?) and understand what caused that
> particular change and then we will be in a position to evaluate whether the
> patch you proposed would be the right fix or not.

I'll see if I can get a bisect going, the problem is that I upload the
kernel over the serial port so this isn't a very quick procedure :-(

Yours,
Linus Walleij