I am seeing many messages like
kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
in my logs. What's the nature of these?
Thanks,
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
"it's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
- george w. bush
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:37:39 +0100 martin f krafft <[email protected]> wrote:
| also sprach Randy.Dunlap <[email protected]> [2004.01.13.2330 +0100]:
| > Any other possibly related messages in the logs?
|
| it's IPsec related since it always appears together with racoon
| entries
It seems to be related to an alias that has no module definition.
| > What kernel version? like 2.4.2x ?? other patches applied?
| > [not 2.6.x since modprobe is being used]
|
| 2.6.1 in fact.
|
| why is modprobe not being using in 2.6.x anymore?
Sorry, I screwed that up. modprobe is stil around, it's just a
different modprobe.
But that messages appears in modutils and not in module-init-tools
AFAICT.
I would guess that you have a high-priority $PATH to old modprobe
than to the new modprobe...
--
~Randy
MOTD: Always include version info.
also sprach Randy.Dunlap <[email protected]> [2004.01.13.2330 +0100]:
> Any other possibly related messages in the logs?
it's IPsec related since it always appears together with racoon
entries
> What kernel version? like 2.4.2x ?? other patches applied?
> [not 2.6.x since modprobe is being used]
2.6.1 in fact.
why is modprobe not being using in 2.6.x anymore?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
"if you can dream it, you can do it"
-- walt disney
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:53:55 +0100 martin f krafft <[email protected]> wrote:
| I am seeing many messages like
|
| kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
|
| in my logs. What's the nature of these?
Any other possibly related messages in the logs?
What kernel version? like 2.4.2x ?? other patches applied?
[not 2.6.x since modprobe is being used]
--
~Randy
MOTD: Always include version info.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:50:47 +0100 martin f krafft <[email protected]> wrote:
| also sprach Randy.Dunlap <[email protected]> [2004.01.13.2341 +0100]:
| > I would guess that you have a high-priority $PATH to old modprobe
| > than to the new modprobe...
|
| That would surprise me, Debian handles this quite well:
|
| diamond:~# which modprobe
| /sbin/modprobe
| diamond:~# modprobe -V
| module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
| diamond:~# modprobe.modutils -V
| modprobe version 2.4.26
| modprobe: QM_MODULES: Function not implemented
| diamond:~# uname -r
| 2.6.1
OK, maybe someone else has an answer then.
The message:
kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
is from modutils and not from module-init-tools according to my
source files.
--
~Randy
MOTD: Always include version info.
also sprach Randy.Dunlap <[email protected]> [2004.01.13.2341 +0100]:
> I would guess that you have a high-priority $PATH to old modprobe
> than to the new modprobe...
That would surprise me, Debian handles this quite well:
diamond:~# which modprobe
/sbin/modprobe
diamond:~# modprobe -V
module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
diamond:~# modprobe.modutils -V
modprobe version 2.4.26
modprobe: QM_MODULES: Function not implemented
diamond:~# uname -r
2.6.1
PS: I would appreciate not being CC'd on list mail.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
the only real advantage to punk music is
that nobody can whistle it.
On Tue, January 13, 2004 at 3:03 pm, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> OK, maybe someone else has an answer then.
>
> The message:
> kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
> is from modutils and not from module-init-tools according to my
> source files.
I'm getting similar messages from dmesg after upgrading to 2.6.1, too:
request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- n. error = 256
[drees@summit drees]$ /sbin/modprobe -V
module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
[drees@summit drees]$
Running on Fedora Core 1 compiled with gcc 3.3.2. Didn't see these with
2.6.0.
-Dave
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:38:45 -0800 (PST) "David Rees" <[email protected]> wrote:
| On Tue, January 13, 2004 at 3:03 pm, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| >
| > OK, maybe someone else has an answer then.
| >
| > The message:
| > kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
| > is from modutils and not from module-init-tools according to my
| > source files.
|
| I'm getting similar messages from dmesg after upgrading to 2.6.1, too:
|
| request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- n. error = 256
|
| [drees@summit drees]$ /sbin/modprobe -V
| module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
| [drees@summit drees]$
|
| Running on Fedora Core 1 compiled with gcc 3.3.2. Didn't see these with
| 2.6.0.
Yes, I see a couple of similar messages:
request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- parport_lowlevel. error = -16
request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- fb0. error = 256
...?
--
~Randy
MOTD: Always include version info.
also sprach David Rees <[email protected]> [2004.01.14.0038 +0100]:
> Running on Fedora Core 1 compiled with gcc 3.3.2. Didn't see these with
> 2.6.0.
Neither did I. Are you running IPsec?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
this message represents the official view of the voices in my head.
On Tue, January 13, 2004 at 4:08 pm, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David Rees <[email protected]> [2004.01.14.0038 +0100]:
>> Running on Fedora Core 1 compiled with gcc 3.3.2. Didn't see these with
>> 2.6.0.
>
> Neither did I. Are you running IPsec?
No IPsec, though I do have the crypto stuff compiled as modules.
-Dave
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:01:31 -0800 "Randy.Dunlap" <[email protected]> wrote:
| On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:38:45 -0800 (PST) "David Rees" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| | On Tue, January 13, 2004 at 3:03 pm, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| | >
| | > OK, maybe someone else has an answer then.
| | >
| | > The message:
| | > kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
| | > is from modutils and not from module-init-tools according to my
| | > source files.
| |
| | I'm getting similar messages from dmesg after upgrading to 2.6.1, too:
| |
| | request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- n. error = 256
| |
| | [drees@summit drees]$ /sbin/modprobe -V
| | module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
| | [drees@summit drees]$
| |
| | Running on Fedora Core 1 compiled with gcc 3.3.2. Didn't see these with
| | 2.6.0.
|
| Yes, I see a couple of similar messages:
|
| request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- parport_lowlevel. error = -16
| request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- fb0. error = 256
|
| ...?
I don't think that it's related to IPsec since I'm not using that.
I'm looking at the changes in kernel/kmod.c for 2.6.1 to see if they
could cause it.
--
~Randy
MOTD: Always include version info.
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:26:00 +1000 Steve Youngs <[email protected]> wrote:
| * Randy Dunlap <Randy.Dunlap> writes:
|
| > The message:
| > kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
| > is from modutils and not from module-init-tools according to my
| > source files.
|
| Your correct about where this message _doesn't_ come from, but not
| about where it _does_ come from...
|
| ,----[ ./kernel/kmod.c -- lines 113 - 115 ]
| | printk(KERN_DEBUG
| | "request_module: failed %s -- %s. error = %d\n",
| | modprobe_path, module_name, ret);
| `----
Yes, I found that and am digging into it, but I'm close to end-of-day,
so someone else can pick it up soon...
--
~Randy
MOTD: Always include version info.
also sprach Randy.Dunlap <[email protected]> [2004.01.14.0231 +0100]:
> Yes, I found that and am digging into it, but I'm close to
> end-of-day, so someone else can pick it up soon...
I appreciate your time, Randy!
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
"if they can get you asking the wrong questions,
they don't have to worry about answers."
-- thomas pynchon
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:38:45 -0800 (PST) "David Rees" <[email protected]> wrote:
> kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
Chris Wright tells me that this is a null digest crypto plugin
for testing. It might show up in your /etc/modprobe.conf file
(or it might not).
| request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- n. error = 256
This is looking for a module named "n". Don't know where that
comes from.
In both cases, error = 256 is 0x100, which is the value returned
from kernel/kmod.c::call_usermodehelper(), which execs /sbin/modprobe
in this case. /sbin/modprobe does exit(1) for modules that are
not found, and that 1 becomes 0x100 in call_usermodehelper().
| Running on Fedora Core 1 compiled with gcc 3.3.2. Didn't see these with
| 2.6.0.
and I wrote yesterday:
| request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- parport_lowlevel. error = -16
This one comes from drivers/char/lp.c::lp_init() calling
parport_register_driver(), which calls get_lowlevel_driver(),
which calls request_module("parport_lowlevel").
Since I have lp.o and parport code built into the kernel image,
these calls happen during early init, before <system_running>
is set to 1, so call_usermodehelper() returns -EBUSY (-16 on x86).
| request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- fb0. error = 256
Same as first case above, but for a framebuffer device.
I don't know what needs to be done about these, if anything.
Comments, suggestions?
--
~Randy
tor, 15.01.2004 kl. 00.48 skrev Randy.Dunlap:
> I don't know what needs to be done about these, if anything.
As Steve Youngs wrote a couple of days ago:
install <modulename> /bin/true
in your modprobe.conf will get rid of the messages,
if you find them annoying.
Best regards,
Stian
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:53:55 +0100
martin f krafft <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am seeing many messages like
>
> kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
>
> in my logs. What's the nature of these?
Upgrade module-init-tools to 0.9.14 or one of the 3.0 -pres.
Old "modprobe -q" fails when presented with a module it has never heard of.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too
many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy
also sprach Rusty Russell <[email protected]> [2004.01.15.0022 +0100]:
> Upgrade module-init-tools to 0.9.14 or one of the 3.0 -pres.
diamond:~# modprobe -V
module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
i've not lost my mind. it's backed up on tape somewhere.
also sprach Randy.Dunlap <[email protected]> [2004.01.15.0048 +0100]:
> > kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
>
> Chris Wright tells me that this is a null digest crypto plugin
> for testing. It might show up in your /etc/modprobe.conf file
> (or it might not).
i don't see such a module in the kernel config. there is the null
encryption, but it's not a null digest.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
this space intentionally left blank.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:08:15 +0100 martin f krafft <[email protected]> wrote:
| also sprach Rusty Russell <[email protected]> [2004.01.15.0022 +0100]:
| > Upgrade module-init-tools to 0.9.14 or one of the 3.0 -pres.
|
| diamond:~# modprobe -V
| module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
Yes, and I'm using 0.9.14 and seeing similar messages.
--
~Randy
i am quite sure this message comes from freeswan 2.04.
programs/pluto/kernel_netlink.c: { SADB_X_AALG_NULL, "digest_null" },
Think it could be fixed by replacing digest_null with crypto_null (or modprobing
crypto_null manually before starting freeswan) but then the next problem with
kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- ripemd160. error = 256
from same freeswan source file...
Andreas
PS: sorry, Randy for dublette...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:08:15 +0100 martin f krafft <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> | also sprach Rusty Russell <[email protected]> [2004.01.15.0022 +0100]:
> | > Upgrade module-init-tools to 0.9.14 or one of the 3.0 -pres.
> |
> | diamond:~# modprobe -V
> | module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
>
> Yes, and I'm using 0.9.14 and seeing similar messages.
>
> --
> ~Randy
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 01:03, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:50:47 +0100 martin f krafft <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> | also sprach Randy.Dunlap <[email protected]> [2004.01.13.2341 +0100]:
> | > I would guess that you have a high-priority $PATH to old modprobe
> | > than to the new modprobe...
> |
> | That would surprise me, Debian handles this quite well:
> |
> | diamond:~# which modprobe
> | /sbin/modprobe
> | diamond:~# modprobe -V
> | module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
> | diamond:~# modprobe.modutils -V
> | modprobe version 2.4.26
> | modprobe: QM_MODULES: Function not implemented
> | diamond:~# uname -r
> | 2.6.1
>
> OK, maybe someone else has an answer then.
>
> The message:
> kernel: request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- digest_null. error = 256
> is from modutils and not from module-init-tools according to my
> source files.
>
Its from the kernel afaik. It calls modprobe, fails, and then prints
its own custom message. He basically just have something that tries
to load a module with alias 'digest_null', but there is no such module,
so fails.
I have the same thing when I open gnome-mixer:
--
request_module: failed /sbin/modprobe -- sound-slot-1. error = 256
--
as I only have one sound card ...
Cheers,
--
Martin Schlemmer
In message <[email protected]> you write:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:08:15 +0100 martin f krafft <[email protected]> wrot
e:
>
> | also sprach Rusty Russell <[email protected]> [2004.01.15.0022 +0100]:
> | > Upgrade module-init-tools to 0.9.14 or one of the 3.0 -pres.
> |
> | diamond:~# modprobe -V
> | module-init-tools version 3.0-pre5
>
> Yes, and I'm using 0.9.14 and seeing similar messages.
Yes, as several people have pointed out. I *did* briefly make the
change so -q always returned "success", but had to revert it because
it caused infinite loops in some legitimate configurations (thanks to
Jamie Lokier for reporting this).
With the change to default to idemptent behavior (modprobe foo when
foo is already installed silently "succeeds" unless --first-time is
specified), the definition of -q can be safely changed to mean "ignore
this if you've never heard of it").
This is done in 3.0-pre6, now available.
BTW, if you had fairly complex modules.conf, you should regenerate
modprobe.conf for the 3.0 releases: some cases have changed.
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.