hi,
I get the following crash with 2.6.24-rc1-g54866f03, the last version I
tested which booted fine was 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac0
Netconsole was active, so i took a picture:
http://www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/pdrm2410.jpg
Here is the message typed:
BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address f00ef97
printing eip: c0118042 *pde = 0000000
Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT
Modules linked in:
Pid: 0, comm: Not tainted (2.6.24-rc1-g54866f03 #4)
EIP: 0060:[<c0118042>] EFLAGS: 00010086 CPU: 0
EIP is at update_curr+0x12/0x100
EAX: f000ef6f EBC: 00000000 ECX: 00000000 EDX: c1431580
ESI: f000ef6f EDI: c1431580 EBP: c0814ec8 ESP: c0814ea0
DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
Process (pid: 0, ti=c0814000, task=c07d03a0 task,ti=c0814000)
Stack: f000ef6f c080fa00 00000000 00000001 00000000 42549096 00000007
00000000
...
Call Trace:
[<c01049fa>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
[<c0104ab9>] show_stack_log_lvl+0xa9/0xd0
[<c0104baa>] show_registers+0xca/0x250
[<c0104e31>] die+0x101/0x220
[<c011631b>] do_page_fault+0x27b/0x610
[<c065d752>] error_code+0x6a/0x70
[<c011833c>] enqueue_entity+0x1c/0x60
[<c011839a>] enqueue_task_fair+0x1a/0x30
[<c0117865>] enqueue_task+0x27/0x30
[<c01178d7>] activate_task+0x27/0x40
[<c011b6ec>] wake_up_new_task+0x4c/0x80
[<c011dcd7>] do_fork+0x147/0x250
[<c0102596>] kernel_thread+0x86/0xa0
[<c065a714>] rest_inix+0x14/0x60
[<c0815b75>] start_kernel+0x235/0x2c0
[<00000000>] 0x0
================
Code: 00 80 00 00 8d 14 16 83 d2 00 0f ac d0 10 c1 ea 10 eb 96 8d
b6 00 00 00 00 55 89 e5 83 ec 28 89 5d f4 89 75 f8 89 7d ...
System is a Pentium 3, gcc is version 4.1.2 (Ubuntu 4.1.2-0ubuntu4)
Greetings, Eric
On Friday, 2 November 2007 13:36, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> hi,
>
> I get the following crash with 2.6.24-rc1-g54866f03, the last version I
> tested which booted fine was 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac0
Does 2.6.23 work correctly for you?
Rafael
* Rafael J. Wysocki ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Friday, 2 November 2007 13:36, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > I get the following crash with 2.6.24-rc1-g54866f03, the last version I
> > tested which booted fine was 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac0
>
> Does 2.6.23 work correctly for you?
2.6.23.1 does work fine, i also tested 2.6.24-rc1, 2.6.24-rc1-g2a397e82
and 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac0 which did well, so this is a recently
introduced regression.
Eric
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:36 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> hi,
>
> I get the following crash with 2.6.24-rc1-g54866f03, the last version I
> tested which booted fine was 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac0
>
How reproducable is this?
If its very much reproducable, could you git bisect it, as in between
those commits you tested nothing much has changed, that is, nothing that
stands out to me.
# git log -p b1d08ac0..54866f03 | git shortlog
David S. Miller (7):
[SPARC64]: Fix bogus '&' conditinal in set_rtc_mmss().
[SPARC64]: Kill unused ITAG_MASK macro in ultra.S
[SPARC64]: Fix build failure when CONFIG_BUG is disabled.
[SPARC64]: Fix build with CONFIG_NET disabled.
[SPARC64]: Fix linkage of enormous kernels.
[IRDA] IRNET: Fix build when TCGETS2 is defined.
[SPARC64]: Update defconfig.
Ilpo J<E4>rvinen (2):
[TCP]: Process DSACKs that reside within a SACK block
[TCP]: Another TAGBITS -> SACKED_ACKED|LOST conversion
Linus Torvalds (1):
Merge branch 'master' of master.kernel.org:/.../davem/net-2.6
Pavel Emelyanov (13):
[NET]: Move the sock_copy() from the header
[NET]: Move the get_net() from sock_copy()
[NET]: Cleanup the allocation/freeing of the sock object
[NET]: Auto-zero the allocated sock object
[NET]: Move some core sock setup into sk_prot_alloc
[NET]: Make the sk_clone() lighter
[NET]: Remove bogus zero_it argument from sk_alloc
[NET]: Forget the zero_it argument of sk_alloc()
[NETNS]: Make the init/exit hooks checks outside the loop
[NET]: Relax the reference counting of init_net_ns
[NET]: Hide the dead code in the net_namespace.c
[NET]: Mark the setup_net as __net_init
[NET]: Hide the net_ns kmem cache
Stephen Hemminger (1):
[NET]: docbook fixes for netif_ functions
* Peter Zijlstra ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:36 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > I get the following crash with 2.6.24-rc1-g54866f03, the last version I
> > tested which booted fine was 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac0
> >
>
> How reproducable is this?
happens every boot
> If its very much reproducable, could you git bisect it, as in between
> those commits you tested nothing much has changed, that is, nothing that
> stands out to me.
i did already bisect this but landed at a commit which wasnt the cause
(also failed when i reverted it), I am currently bisecting a second time with
-rc1 as the other starting point, because I am not sure how to make git
give me revision gb1d08ac0 again to test it another time (the binary i
have here boots fine)
Thanks, Eric
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 13:44 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:36 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > I get the following crash with 2.6.24-rc1-g54866f03, the last version I
> > > tested which booted fine was 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac0
> > >
> >
> > How reproducable is this?
>
> happens every boot
>
> > If its very much reproducable, could you git bisect it, as in between
> > those commits you tested nothing much has changed, that is, nothing that
> > stands out to me.
>
> i did already bisect this but landed at a commit which wasnt the cause
> (also failed when i reverted it), I am currently bisecting a second time with
> -rc1 as the other starting point, because I am not sure how to make git
> give me revision gb1d08ac0 again to test it another time (the binary i
> have here boots fine)
git checkout b1d08ac0
should do I guess.
* Peter Zijlstra ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 13:44 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:36 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > I get the following crash with 2.6.24-rc1-g54866f03, the last version I
> > > > tested which booted fine was 2.6.24-rc1-gb1d08ac0
> > > >
> > >
> > > How reproducable is this?
> >
> > happens every boot
> >
> > > If its very much reproducable, could you git bisect it, as in between
> > > those commits you tested nothing much has changed, that is, nothing that
> > > stands out to me.
> >
> > i did already bisect this but landed at a commit which wasnt the cause
> > (also failed when i reverted it), I am currently bisecting a second time with
> > -rc1 as the other starting point, because I am not sure how to make git
> > give me revision gb1d08ac0 again to test it another time (the binary i
> > have here boots fine)
hmm did another git bisect, which also gave a bogus commit, made a fresh
checkout into an empty dir and the current kernel boots fine, seems like
there was something wrong with my local sources.
Greetings, Eric
