Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
- Ken
Bad page state at free_hot_cold_page (in process 'sh', page ffff81000482dde8)
flags:0x8000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000 mapcount:1 count:0
Backtrace:
Call Trace:<ffffffff8014ef8c>{bad_page+115} <ffffffff8014f71f>{free_hot_cold_page+120}
<ffffffff8014f7d3>{__pagevec_free+33} <ffffffff80154ecc>{release_pages+369}
<ffffffff80154fc4>{__pagevec_lru_add_active+230} <ffffffff8015b14f>{__handle_mm_fault+680}
<ffffffff801b0f03>{journal_stop+487} <ffffffff80396970>{do_page_fault+992}
<ffffffff8013a3bf>{do_sigaction+110} <ffffffff8013a849>{sys_rt_sigaction+132}
<ffffffff8010e249>{error_exit+0}
Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
Bad page state at free_hot_cold_page (in process 'sh', page ffff8100049d0f78)
flags:0x8000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000 mapcount:1 count:0
Backtrace:
Call Trace:<ffffffff8014ef8c>{bad_page+115} <ffffffff8014f71f>{free_hot_cold_page+120}
<ffffffff8014f7d3>{__pagevec_free+33} <ffffffff80154ecc>{release_pages+369}
<ffffffff80154fc4>{__pagevec_lru_add_active+230} <ffffffff8015b14f>{__handle_mm_fault+680}
<ffffffff801b0f03>{journal_stop+487} <ffffffff80396970>{do_page_fault+992}
<ffffffff8013a3bf>{do_sigaction+110} <ffffffff8013a849>{sys_rt_sigaction+132}
<ffffffff8010e249>{error_exit+0}
Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
Bad page state at free_hot_cold_page (in process 'sh', page ffff8100049d0f40)
flags:0x8000000000000004 mapping:0000000000000000 mapcount:1 count:0
Backtrace:
Call Trace:<ffffffff8014ef8c>{bad_page+115} <ffffffff8014f71f>{free_hot_cold_page+120}
<ffffffff8014f7d3>{__pagevec_free+33} <ffffffff80154ecc>{release_pages+369}
<ffffffff80154fc4>{__pagevec_lru_add_active+230} <ffffffff8015b14f>{__handle_mm_fault+680}
<ffffffff801b0f03>{journal_stop+487} <ffffffff80396970>{do_page_fault+992}
<ffffffff8013a3bf>{do_sigaction+110} <ffffffff8013a849>{sys_rt_sigaction+132}
<ffffffff8010e249>{error_exit+0}
Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
sh[16651]: segfault at 0000000000000028 rip 000000000042c830 rsp 00007fffffa8bad8 error 4
Kernel BUG at mm/swap.c:218
invalid operand: 0000 [1] SMP
CPU 1
Modules linked in:
Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff80154db0>] <ffffffff80154db0>{release_pages+85}
RSP: 0018:ffff81011569dca8 EFLAGS: 00010257
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff8100049d0fb0 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: ffff8100049d0fb0 RSI: 0000000000000010 RDI: ffff810004f38298
RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: 0000000000000010 R14: ffff810004f38298 R15: ffff81011569dca8
FS: 00002aaaaaac7b00(0000) GS:ffffffff804e1880(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
CR2: 000000390128f070 CR3: 00000001034a4000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
Process cc1 (pid: 16500, threadinfo ffff81011569c000, task ffff810116cd03c0)
Stack: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffff810004bdc960 ffff810004ceea70
ffff810004aae9d8 ffff810004b2dc70 ffff810004b8f1f0 ffff810004a46730
ffff810004d5f090 ffff8100048c5298
Call Trace:<ffffffff80162597>{free_pages_and_swap_cache+116} <ffffffff80159aa6>{unmap_vma
s+1484}
<ffffffff8015e98a>{exit_mmap+121} <ffffffff8012c7b0>{mmput+38}
<ffffffff80130c10>{do_exit+462} <ffffffff8020cbf3>{__up_write+34}
<ffffffff8013169f>{sys_exit_group+0} <ffffffff8010d50e>{system_call+126}
Code: 0f 0b 68 ca c9 3b 80 c2 da 00 f0 83 43 08 ff 0f 98 c0 84 c0
RIP <ffffffff80154db0>{release_pages+85} RSP <ffff81011569dca8>
----------- [cut here ] --------- [please bite here ] ---------
Fixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!
Kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:491
invalid operand: 0000 [2] SMP
CPU 3
Modules linked in:
Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff80160b33>] <ffffffff80160b33>{page_remove_rmap+21}
RSP: 0000:ffff810104a89bf0 EFLAGS: 00010286
RAX: 00000000ffffffff RBX: ffff81010466d648 RCX: 000000010466d000
RDX: ffff810001000000 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffff8100049d0f40
RBP: 00000000006c9000 R08: ffff810104a89d00 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000030001 R12: 80000001084d8067
R13: ffff8100049d0f40 R14: ffff810004f38280 R15: ffff810104a89cb8
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff804e1980(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
CR2: 0000000000000028 CR3: 0000000113261000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
Process sh (pid: 16651, threadinfo ffff810104a88000, task ffff810119681890)
Stack: ffffffff80159a52 ffff810004f38280 00000000006dcfff 00000000006dcfff
00000000006dcfff ffff8100048f67e8 00000000fffffff2 ffff81010e1a9c40
00000000006dd000 ffff81010a638018
Call Trace:<ffffffff80159a52>{unmap_vmas+1400} <ffffffff8015e98a>{exit_mmap+121}
<ffffffff8012c7b0>{mmput+38} <ffffffff80130c10>{do_exit+462}
<ffffffff80137ff7>{__dequeue_signal+435} <ffffffff8013169f>{sys_exit_group+0}
<ffffffff801399fd>{get_signal_to_deliver+1163} <ffffffff80138406>{specific_send_sig_info+168}
<ffffffff8010c9ed>{do_signal+109} <ffffffff80182dc9>{mntput_no_expire+28}
<ffffffff80182dc9>{mntput_no_expire+28} <ffffffff8016896e>{sys_access+247}
<ffffffff80172263>{sys_newstat+33} <ffffffff8010db78>{retint_signal+61}
Code: 0f 0b 68 b1 ca 3b 80 c2 eb 01 48 c7 c6 ff ff ff ff bf 20 00
RIP <ffffffff80160b33>{page_remove_rmap+21} RSP <ffff810104a89bf0>
<1>Fixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!
Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
^^^^^^^^^^
Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
Con
Con Kolivas wrote on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:24 PM
> Chen, Kenneth W writes:
>
> > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> >
> > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >
> > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
???, I'm not using any modules at all.
[albat]$ /sbin/lsmod
Module Size Used by
[albat]$
Also, isn't it 'P' indicate proprietary module, not 'G'?
line 159: kernel/panic.c:
snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c",
tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? 'P' : 'G',
- Ken
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:24, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> >
> > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >
> > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
AFAIK "G" means all loaded modules are GPL, P is for proprietary modules.
FWIW, I reported a similarly located BUG() in this file (line 487 in 2.6.14) a
couple of weeks ago. I believe there is a problem lurking somewhere.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.'
Third year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> Con Kolivas wrote on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:24 PM
>> Chen, Kenneth W writes:
>>
>> > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
>> >
>> > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
>> >
>> > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
>
>
> ???, I'm not using any modules at all.
>
> [albat]$ /sbin/lsmod
> Module Size Used by
> [albat]$
>
>
> Also, isn't it 'P' indicate proprietary module, not 'G'?
> line 159: kernel/panic.c:
>
> snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c",
> tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? 'P' : 'G',
Sorry it's not proprietary module indeed. But what is tainting it?
Con
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:24 PM
> > Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> >
> > > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> > >
> > > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> > >
> > > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
>
>
> ???, I'm not using any modules at all.
>
> [albat]$ /sbin/lsmod
> Module Size Used by
> [albat]$
>
>
> Also, isn't it 'P' indicate proprietary module, not 'G'?
Yes. It's the 'B' that is tainting in this case:
TAINT_BAD_PAGE is set.
> line 159: kernel/panic.c:
>
> snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c",
> tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? 'P' : 'G',
--
~Randy
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> > Con Kolivas wrote on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:24 PM
> >
> >> Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> >> > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> >> >
> >> > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >> >
> >> > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >>
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
> >
> > ???, I'm not using any modules at all.
> >
> > [albat]$ /sbin/lsmod
> > Module Size Used by
> > [albat]$
> >
> >
> > Also, isn't it 'P' indicate proprietary module, not 'G'?
> > line 159: kernel/panic.c:
> >
> > snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c",
> > tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? 'P' : 'G',
>
> Sorry it's not proprietary module indeed. But what is tainting it?
Probably a prior oops or some other marked error condition.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.'
Third year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
>
> > Con Kolivas wrote on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:24 PM
> > > Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> > >
> > > > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> > > >
> > > > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> > > >
> > > > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> > >
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
> >
> >
> > ???, I'm not using any modules at all.
> >
> > [albat]$ /sbin/lsmod
> > Module Size Used by
> > [albat]$
> >
> >
> > Also, isn't it 'P' indicate proprietary module, not 'G'?
>
> Yes. It's the 'B' that is tainting in this case:
> TAINT_BAD_PAGE is set.
in only one place:
./mm/page_alloc.c:148: add_taint(TAINT_BAD_PAGE);
> > line 159: kernel/panic.c:
> >
> > snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c",
> > tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? 'P' : 'G',
>
>
--
~Randy
Alistair John Strachan writes:
> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> Chen, Kenneth W writes:
>> > Con Kolivas wrote on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:24 PM
>> >
>> >> Chen, Kenneth W writes:
>> >> > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
>> >> >
>> >> > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
>> >> >
>> >> > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
>> >>
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>
>> >> Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
>> >
>> > ???, I'm not using any modules at all.
>> >
>> > [albat]$ /sbin/lsmod
>> > Module Size Used by
>> > [albat]$
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, isn't it 'P' indicate proprietary module, not 'G'?
>> > line 159: kernel/panic.c:
>> >
>> > snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c",
>> > tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? 'P' : 'G',
>>
>> Sorry it's not proprietary module indeed. But what is tainting it?
>
> Probably a prior oops or some other marked error condition.
My humble apologies! Force of habit when seeing tainted message which
comes up so often :(
Con
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Chen, Kenneth W writes:
>
> >Con Kolivas wrote on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:24 PM
> >>Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> >>
> >>> Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> >>>
> >>> Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >>>
> >>> Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >
> >Also, isn't it 'P' indicate proprietary module, not 'G'?
> >line 159: kernel/panic.c:
> >
> > snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c",
> > tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? 'P' : 'G',
>
> Sorry it's not proprietary module indeed. But what is tainting it?
'B' = bad page ;)
Dave
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:35:15PM +0000, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:24, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> > > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> > >
> > > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> > >
> > > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
>
> AFAIK "G" means all loaded modules are GPL, P is for proprietary modules.
The 'G' seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people.
(I've been asked about it when people got machine checks a lot over
the last few months).
Would anyone object to changing it to conform to the style of
the other taint flags ? Ie, change it to ' ' ?
Dave
On Thursday 24 November 2005 04:40, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:35:15PM +0000, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:24, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> > > > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> > > >
> > > > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> > > >
> > > > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> > >
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked
> > > in.
> >
> > AFAIK "G" means all loaded modules are GPL, P is for proprietary
> > modules.
>
> The 'G' seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people.
> (I've been asked about it when people got machine checks a lot over
> the last few months).
>
> Would anyone object to changing it to conform to the style of
> the other taint flags ? Ie, change it to ' ' ?
I don't understand the reasons for making the tainted string all the same
length anyway. Why not just remove all the extra spaces?
Unless you know what you're looking for, I can assure you that:
Tainted: G B SOMEOTHERTEXT
Is not intuitively readable (which text does B belong to?).
Tainted: B SOMEOTHERTEXT
Is better, but still not very good. Why not drop the spaces?
3rd party parsing purposes?
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.'
Third year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 23:40 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> The 'G' seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people.
> (I've been asked about it when people got machine checks a lot over
> the last few months).
>
> Would anyone object to changing it to conform to the style of
> the other taint flags ? Ie, change it to ' ' ?
While you're at it why not print a big loud warning that says not to
post the Oops to LKML, and instructing the user to reproduce with a
clean kernel, if the P flag is set? Presumably the reason for the terse
output is to get the maximum possible debug information on the screen,
but we don't care about stack traces for tainted kernels anyway.
Something must need fixing, as the volume of tainted Oops reports shows
no sign of diminishing, and the users aren't getting any less pissy when
you tell them to come back with a clean bug report.
Lee
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:35:15PM +0000, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:24, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> > > > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> > > >
> > > > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> > > >
> > > > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> > >
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
> >
> > AFAIK "G" means all loaded modules are GPL, P is for proprietary modules.
>
> The 'G' seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people.
> (I've been asked about it when people got machine checks a lot over
> the last few months).
>
> Would anyone object to changing it to conform to the style of
> the other taint flags ? Ie, change it to ' ' ?
Please, please do: it's insane as is. But I've CC'ed Keith,
we sometimes find the kernel does things so to suit ksymoops.
Hugh
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
>
> Bad page state at free_hot_cold_page (in process 'sh', page ffff81000482dde8)
> flags:0x8000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000 mapcount:1 count:0
> Bad page state at free_hot_cold_page (in process 'sh', page ffff8100049d0f78)
> flags:0x8000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000 mapcount:1 count:0
> Bad page state at free_hot_cold_page (in process 'sh', page ffff8100049d0f40)
> flags:0x8000000000000004 mapping:0000000000000000 mapcount:1 count:0
> Kernel BUG at mm/swap.c:218
> Kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:491
Neither mm/rmap.c (page_remove_rmap) nor mm/swap.c (put_page_testzero)
BUG is interesting in this case, they're just side-effects of trying to
recover from the preceding "Bad page state"s.
Which are interesting. Not at all the same case as the many recently
reported while we were fixing up PageReserved removal cases; though
yours will probably be related.
It could conceivably be an effect of a DRM pci_alloc_consistent issue
which Dave Airlie spotted yesterday; but not a typical case of it,
and I'm probably only thinking of that one because it's uppermost.
Please send your .config (I hope it's tailored somewhat to your machine,
rather than an allyesconfig or the like?) and bootup dmesg, in case they
help to narrow the search. You were just running straight 2.6.15-rc2,
no additional patches? Doing anything interesting just before this
happened?
Thanks,
Hugh
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 07:50 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> But I've CC'ed Keith,
> we sometimes find the kernel does things so to suit ksymoops.
Um, unless someone has been merging Documentation patches without
reading them, ksymoops shouldn't be used with 2.6 anyway.
Lee
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 23:40 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > The 'G' seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people.
> > (I've been asked about it when people got machine checks a lot over
> > the last few months).
> >
> > Would anyone object to changing it to conform to the style of
> > the other taint flags ? Ie, change it to ' ' ?
>
> While you're at it why not print a big loud warning that says not to
> post the Oops to LKML, and instructing the user to reproduce with a
I don't think wasting precious screen real estate on warnings is a good
idea. The oops may also be of use, there have been occassions where the
only oops output had a proprietary bit set. The person handling the bug
report should be the one making the decision as to whether to repost a new
oops.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:33:12AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 07:50 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > But I've CC'ed Keith,
> > we sometimes find the kernel does things so to suit ksymoops.
>
> Um, unless someone has been merging Documentation patches without
> reading them, ksymoops shouldn't be used with 2.6 anyway.
It is occasionally still useful for decoding Code: lines back
to assembly.
Dave
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:50:49 +0000 (GMT),
Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:35:15PM +0000, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:24, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> > > Chen, Kenneth W writes:
>> > > > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
>> > > >
>> > > > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
>> > > >
>> > > > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
>> > >
>> > > ^^^^^^^^^^
>> > >
>> > > Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules linked in.
>> >
>> > AFAIK "G" means all loaded modules are GPL, P is for proprietary modules.
>>
>> The 'G' seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people.
>> (I've been asked about it when people got machine checks a lot over
>> the last few months).
>>
>> Would anyone object to changing it to conform to the style of
>> the other taint flags ? Ie, change it to ' ' ?
>
>Please, please do: it's insane as is. But I've CC'ed Keith,
>we sometimes find the kernel does things so to suit ksymoops.
'G' is not one of mine, I find it annoying as well.
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:47, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:50:49 +0000 (GMT),
>
> Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:35:15PM +0000, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:24, Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> > > Chen, Kenneth W writes:
> >> > > > Has people seen this BUG_ON before? On 2.6.15-rc2, x86-64.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Pid: 16500, comm: cc1 Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Pid: 16651, comm: sh Tainted: G B 2.6.15-rc2 #3
> >> > >
> >> > > ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> > >
> >> > > Please try to reproduce it without proprietary binary modules
> >> > > linked in.
> >> >
> >> > AFAIK "G" means all loaded modules are GPL, P is for proprietary
> >> > modules.
> >>
> >> The 'G' seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people.
> >> (I've been asked about it when people got machine checks a lot over
> >> the last few months).
> >>
> >> Would anyone object to changing it to conform to the style of
> >> the other taint flags ? Ie, change it to ' ' ?
> >
> >Please, please do: it's insane as is. But I've CC'ed Keith,
> >we sometimes find the kernel does things so to suit ksymoops.
>
> 'G' is not one of mine, I find it annoying as well.
Would anyone object to changing it so that tainted only means Proprietary
taint and use a different keyword for GPL tainting such as "Corrupted"?
Con
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:47, Keith Owens wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:50:49 +0000 (GMT),
> > Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The 'G' seems to confuse a hell of a lot of people.
> > >> (I've been asked about it when people got machine checks a lot over
> > >> the last few months).
> > >>
> > >> Would anyone object to changing it to conform to the style of
> > >> the other taint flags ? Ie, change it to ' ' ?
> > >
> > >Please, please do: it's insane as is. But I've CC'ed Keith,
> > >we sometimes find the kernel does things so to suit ksymoops.
> >
> > 'G' is not one of mine, I find it annoying as well.
>
> Would anyone object to changing it so that tainted only means Proprietary
> taint and use a different keyword for GPL tainting such as "Corrupted"?
I don't see the point. The system is in a dubious state, tainted is
the word we've been using for that, the flags indicate what's suspect,
why play with the wording further? But replace 'G' by ' ' certainly.
Hugh
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Would anyone object to changing it so that tainted only means Proprietary
> > taint and use a different keyword for GPL tainting such as "Corrupted"?
>
> I don't see the point. The system is in a dubious state, tainted is
> the word we've been using for that, the flags indicate what's suspect,
> why play with the wording further?
I was simply thinking of us confused users. No good reason otherwise.
Cheers,
Con