Gabriel C wrote: > Satyam Sharma wrote: > >> Hi Gabriel, >> >> On 7/16/07, Gabriel C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> ( http://194.231.229.228/Oops.txt ) >>> >>> >> >> >>> I cannot reproduce this on plain 2.6.22 so I've started to bisect the >>> problem. >>> >>> >> Could you reproduce this oops at will at the "bad" points? [ Note that >> git-bisect isn't quite applicable to bugs that are not 100% reproducible. >> The ones that passed as "good" may have passed only because the >> bug didn't get triggered on that particular test. Also, a perfectly good >> commit could get unnecessarily marked "bad" because the bug >> happened to get triggered for it ... so it's not quite trust-worthy for >> your case. ] >> >> > > Yes all marked 'bad' ponts have the Oops , at least here. > > >> >> >>> Here the bisect result: >>> >>> 3007e997de91ec59af39a3f9c91595b31ae6e08b is first bad commit >>> commit 3007e997de91ec59af39a3f9c91595b31ae6e08b >>> Author: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: Thu Jun 14 04:27:23 2007 +0900 >>> >>> sysfs: use sysfs_mutex to protect the sysfs_dirent tree >>> >>> As kobj sysfs dentries and inodes are gonna be made reclaimable, >>> i_mutex can't be used to protect sysfs_dirent tree. Use sysfs_mutex >>> globally instead. As the whole tree is protected with sysfs_mutex, >>> there is no reason to keep sysfs_rename_sem. Drop it. >>> >>> While at it, add docbook comments to functions which require >>> sysfs_mutex locking. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> :040000 040000 9deba7887752bc343cc4f5dea2dac70e895ea8b6 >>> 75340b6e18c1ada500bb1a2b99ee88fd93ebae8c M fs >>> >>> >> Hmm, I don't see why this one could introduce an oops in SLUB, >> but it's doing some locking-related stuff, and if it didn't get it right, >> the resulting races /could/ lead to some oops. But ... a recently >> posted patch (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/16/204) from Akinobu >> Mita does point to an oops that was introduced by commit >> 0c096b507f15397da890051ee73de4266d3941fb that belongs to the >> same patchset -- kmem_cache_free(NULL) is illegal and so will oops. >> A curious coincidence is that you do see sysfs_new_dirent() in the >> stack trace there, but the oops there is in kmem_cache_free(), not >> kmem_cache_zalloc() as your dmesg output indicated. >> >> Try that patch anyway, but I don't think that'll solve your problem -- >> if it was, you would've been seeing "unable to handle kernel NULL >> pointer dereference" but what you've been posting is "unable to >> handle kernel paging request at virtual address <non_null_ptr>" ... >> >> > > I will try this patch and look whatever it helps. >
With that patch my box is killed right after fixed modules in modprobed without any trace :| I try now without again Gabriel - 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/
