On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:42:36 -0700
Stuart Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I CC: this to the lkml)
> Did you find a resolution to your posting regarding,
>
> "OOPS in 2.6.19.1, connected to nfs4 and autofs4"
>
> We just had a 2.6.20.11 kernel crash with a sim
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:42:36 -0700
Stuart Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I CC: this to the lkml)
Did you find a resolution to your posting regarding,
OOPS in 2.6.19.1, connected to nfs4 and autofs4
We just had a 2.6.20.11 kernel crash with a similar stack trace.
No, it still happens
As Matt Mackall said:
"So yes, if a user reports a bug that's attributable to a single bit
memory error that's otherwise unreproduced and unexplained, it's totally
reasonable to chalk it up to cosmic rays until some sort of pattern of
reports emerges."
So I guess that the only way to figure
As Matt Mackall said:
So yes, if a user reports a bug that's attributable to a single bit
memory error that's otherwise unreproduced and unexplained, it's totally
reasonable to chalk it up to cosmic rays until some sort of pattern of
reports emerges.
So I guess that the only way to figure
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 04:25:09PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just read about the subjects.
> I have a firewall which has some issues.
> First it was a VIA CL6000 (c3).
> Now it is a EK8000 (c3-2) with different power supply, RAM and board of
> course. Still I see strange
Hello,
I just read about the subjects.
I have a firewall which has some issues.
First it was a VIA CL6000 (c3).
Now it is a EK8000 (c3-2) with different power supply, RAM and board of
course. Still I see strange things sometimes. Crashes, hangs, etc. Now
and then. Not too often.
I have in
Hello,
I just read about the subjects.
I have a firewall which has some issues.
First it was a VIA CL6000 (c3).
Now it is a EK8000 (c3-2) with different power supply, RAM and board of
course. Still I see strange things sometimes. Crashes, hangs, etc. Now
and then. Not too often.
I have in
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 04:25:09PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
Hello,
I just read about the subjects.
I have a firewall which has some issues.
First it was a VIA CL6000 (c3).
Now it is a EK8000 (c3-2) with different power supply, RAM and board of
course. Still I see strange things
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 04:48:43PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:28, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 04:48:43PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:28, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 31 December 2006 21:43, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:29:15 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > Can you post disassembly of pipe_poll() for both the one that crashes
> > > and the one that doesn't? Use 'objdump -D -r fs/pipe.o'
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:29:15 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > Can you post disassembly of pipe_poll() for both the one that crashes
> > and the one that doesn't? Use 'objdump -D -r fs/pipe.o' so we get the
> > relocation info and post just the one
On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:27, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:35PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 28
On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:28, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:35PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
On Saturday 30 December 2006 16:59, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> I have compiled GCC 3.4.6 and compiled 2.6.19 with an identical config
> using this compiler (but the same binutils), and will report back if it
> crashes. My bet is that it won't, however.
Still fine after >24 hours. Linux
On Saturday 30 December 2006 16:59, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
I have compiled GCC 3.4.6 and compiled 2.6.19 with an identical config
using this compiler (but the same binutils), and will report back if it
crashes. My bet is that it won't, however.
Still fine after 24 hours. Linux 2.6.19,
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:35PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
Here's a
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also tried
On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:28, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
I've
On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:27, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:35PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:29:15 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Can you post disassembly of pipe_poll() for both the one that crashes
and the one that doesn't? Use 'objdump -D -r fs/pipe.o' so we get the
relocation info and post just the one function from
On Sunday 31 December 2006 21:43, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:29:15 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Can you post disassembly of pipe_poll() for both the one that crashes
and the one that doesn't? Use 'objdump -D -r fs/pipe.o' so we get
On Saturday 30 December 2006 18:06, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> > I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
> > a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
> > interrupt, but that's not likely.
>
> This looks rather strange.
[snip]
> 2) Kernel
On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also tried toggling
> > "optimize for size", various debug options. 2.6.19 compiled with
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:21:03 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Any ideas?
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0009
83 ca 10 or $0x10,%edx
3b
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also tried toggling "optimize
> for
> size", various debug options. 2.6.19 compiled with GCC 4.1.1 on an Via
> Nehemiah C3-2 seems to crash in
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the
> > > > running
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the
running kernel, the
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also tried toggling optimize
for
size, various debug options. 2.6.19 compiled with GCC 4.1.1 on an Via
Nehemiah C3-2 seems to crash in pipe_poll
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:21:03 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Any ideas?
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0009
83 ca 10 or $0x10,%edx
3b
On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also tried toggling
optimize for size, various debug options. 2.6.19 compiled with GCC
On Saturday 30 December 2006 18:06, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
interrupt, but that's not likely.
This looks rather strange.
[snip]
2) Kernel modules
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the running
> > > kernel, the addresses have changed slightly. There's no xchg there
> > >
On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
> > Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the running
> > kernel, the addresses have changed slightly. There's no xchg there
> > either:
>
> Could you reproduce the bug by the new kernel, so we could get the exact
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 12:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 December 2006 02:07, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Call Trace:
> > > [] do_sys_poll+0x253/0x480
> > > [] sys_poll+0x33/0x50
> > > [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> > > [] 0xb7f26402
> > >
On Wednesday 27 December 2006 02:07, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
> > Call Trace:
> > [] do_sys_poll+0x253/0x480
> > [] sys_poll+0x33/0x50
> > [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> > [] 0xb7f26402
> > ===
> > Code: 58 01 00 00 0f 4f c2 09 c1 89 c8 83 c8 08 85 db 0f 44 c8 8b 5d
On Wednesday 27 December 2006 02:07, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
Call Trace:
[c015d7f3] do_sys_poll+0x253/0x480
[c015da53] sys_poll+0x33/0x50
[c0102c97] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[b7f26402] 0xb7f26402
===
Code: 58 01 00 00 0f 4f c2 09 c1 89 c8 83 c8 08 85
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 12:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Wednesday 27 December 2006 02:07, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
Call Trace:
[c015d7f3] do_sys_poll+0x253/0x480
[c015da53] sys_poll+0x33/0x50
[c0102c97] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[b7f26402] 0xb7f26402
On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the running
kernel, the addresses have changed slightly. There's no xchg there
either:
Could you reproduce the bug by the new kernel, so we could get the exact
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the running
kernel, the addresses have changed slightly. There's no xchg there
either:
Could
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 15:40 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 December 2006 14:21, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take this
> seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 15:40 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 14:21, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Hi,
Any ideas?
Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take this
seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware problem.
On Sunday 24 December 2006 04:23, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
[snip]
> Anyway, post your complete .config.
Config attached.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
Final year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel
On Sunday 24 December 2006 04:23, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:40:46 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take
> > this seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware
On Sunday 24 December 2006 04:23, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:40:46 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take
this seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware problem.
On Sunday 24 December 2006 04:23, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
[snip]
Anyway, post your complete .config.
Config attached.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
Final year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 14:21, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any ideas?
Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take this
seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware problem. I've ran kernels
since 2.6.0 on this machine without such crashes,
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 14:21, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Hi,
Any ideas?
Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take this
seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware problem. I've ran kernels
since 2.6.0 on this machine without such crashes, and
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 GMT, Alistair John Strachan said:
> Seems pretty unlikely on a 4 year old Via Epia. Never had any problems with it
> before now.
>
> Maybe a cosmic ray event? ;-)
More likely a stray alpha particle from a radioactive decay in the actual chip
casing - I saw some
On Thursday 21 December 2006 08:05, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
> > > a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
> > a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
> > interrupt, but that's not likely.
>
> Seems pretty
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
interrupt, but that's not likely.
Seems pretty unlikely
On Thursday 21 December 2006 08:05, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 GMT, Alistair John Strachan said:
Seems pretty unlikely on a 4 year old Via Epia. Never had any problems with it
before now.
Maybe a cosmic ray event? ;-)
More likely a stray alpha particle from a radioactive decay in the actual chip
casing - I saw some research
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 20:48, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
[snip]
> I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
> a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
> interrupt, but that's not likely.
Seems pretty unlikely on a 4 year old Via Epia. Never had
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:21:03 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> Any ideas?
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
> 0009
83 ca 10 or $0x10,%edx
3b.byte 0x3b
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:30, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:03PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Does the problem also happen in 2.6.19?
No idea. I ran 2.6.19 for a couple of weeks without problems. It took 2
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:03PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any ideas?
Does the problem also happen in 2.6.19?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hi,
Any ideas?
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0009
printing eip:
c0156f60
*pde =
Oops: 0002 [#1]
Modules linked in: ipt_recent ipt_REJECT xt_tcpudp ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat
xt_state iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables prism54 yenta_socket
Hi,
Any ideas?
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0009
printing eip:
c0156f60
*pde =
Oops: 0002 [#1]
Modules linked in: ipt_recent ipt_REJECT xt_tcpudp ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat
xt_state iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables prism54 yenta_socket
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:03PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Hi,
Any ideas?
Does the problem also happen in 2.6.19?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:30, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:03PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Hi,
Any ideas?
Does the problem also happen in 2.6.19?
No idea. I ran 2.6.19 for a couple of weeks without problems. It took 2 days
to oops 2.6.19.1, so
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:21:03 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Any ideas?
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0009
83 ca 10 or $0x10,%edx
3b.byte 0x3b
87 68
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 20:48, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
[snip]
I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
interrupt, but that's not likely.
Seems pretty unlikely on a 4 year old Via Epia. Never had any
66 matches
Mail list logo
