On 03/16/2015 04:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/17/15 06:25, Joe Zeff wrote:
My laptop reports several kerneloops every time it boots. AFAIK, there's
nothing installed that taints the kernel, but 99% of the time abrt tells me
that the kernel is tainted and that I can't report it. Suggestions?
On 03/29/2015 07:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
So there is a previous warning (or the kernel is very confused). There
are a pile of bugs already reported on RHBR and kernel.org about this
particular trace you've provided so it seems to be a known problem,
likely a regression. But without a complete
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 04:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> That should get you more than one line. What's probably happening is
>> there's an early "Not Tainted" line which is the one to file as a bug.
>
>
> I don't have that for you yet (It's the laptop g
On 03/16/2015 04:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
That should get you more than one line. What's probably happening is
there's an early "Not Tainted" line which is the one to file as a bug.
I don't have that for you yet (It's the laptop giving me trouble, and I
normally collect my email on my deskto
On 03/18/2015 05:34 PM, jd1008 wrote:
On 03/18/2015 06:26 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2015 10:18 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Not in Joe Zeff's case!!!
To be more specific, there's nothing like that that I'm aware of. Yet.
Perhaps I misread your message???
I haven't had time to follow the suggestio
On 03/18/2015 06:26 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/18/2015 10:18 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Not in Joe Zeff's case!!!
To be more specific, there's nothing like that that I'm aware of. Yet.
Perhaps I misread your message???
On 03/16/2015 04:25 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:29 PM, Matthew Miller
On 03/18/2015 10:18 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Not in Joe Zeff's case!!!
To be more specific, there's nothing like that that I'm aware of. Yet.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedor
On 03/17/2015 11:09 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/18/15 12:42, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/17/2015 08:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
2. how to provide useful debugging info - if the user will not test a
non-tainted kernel I see no possible way for an automated system to
know where to file the bug
You ar
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:18 AM, jd1008 wrote:
>
>
> On 03/17/2015 10:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Taint is always caused by out of tree kernel modules. If you haven't
>> installed anything that installs kernel modules, most typically that's
>> video drivers, then it could be an MCE in which
On 03/17/2015 10:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Taint is always caused by out of tree kernel modules. If you haven't
installed anything that installs kernel modules, most typically that's
video drivers, then it could be an MCE in which case that's a legit
Fedora kernel bug to file, but probably als
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 21:22 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Sounds like a UI bug.
>
> Agreed. And, it would appear, that becomes a "don't really care about
> fixing it" issue, as sound still works, even if the controls are
> backwards.
>
>> Are you tal
On 03/18/15 12:42, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/17/2015 08:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> 2. how to provide useful debugging info - if the user will not test a
>> non-tainted kernel I see no possible way for an automated system to
>> know where to file the bug
>
> You are assuming that it's practical (or
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/17/2015 08:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> 2. how to provide useful debugging info - if the user will not test a
>> non-tainted kernel I see no possible way for an automated system to
>> know where to file the bug
>
>
> You are assuming th
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 21:22 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Sounds like a UI bug.
Agreed. And, it would appear, that becomes a "don't really care about
fixing it" issue, as sound still works, even if the controls are
backwards.
> Are you talking about tainted kernels (3rd party, out of tree kernel
On 03/17/2015 08:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
2. how to provide useful debugging info - if the user will not test a
non-tainted kernel I see no possible way for an automated system to
know where to file the bug
You are assuming that it's practical (or even possible) to run without a
tainted kern
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 14:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> If you know the site already, why not just file the bug directly on
>> that bugzilla? Why does it need to be automated?
>
> As a general response, I'd say that:
>
> People are more likely to mak
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 14:51 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> If you know the site already, why not just file the bug directly on
> that bugzilla? Why does it need to be automated?
As a general response, I'd say that:
People are more likely to make a bug report if it's not a protracted
exercise for th
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 03:29:55PM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
> Also, how about abrt CREATE the full report, and let the user
> save it in a file, and submit it to anyone s/he desires?
> Is THAT too much to ask for???
Well, you can _ask_ for anything. It is definitely too much to expect
someone else to
On Mar 17, 2015 3:30 PM, "jd1008" wrote:
>
> Because the user is not provided with an easy
> way to generate the crash report with a full stack dump
> of all the CPUS, the full contents of RAM and the full
> kernel binary - so that the dev (who would work on the report)
> can do a reasonable sta
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 02:46:15PM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
> >Why bother with this infrastructure if no one is going to look at
> >the reports or do anything about them?
> They are bugzilla servers, and follow the same protocol of bug
> submission as the fedora and the redhat report submission protoco
On 03/17/2015 02:51 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
If the kernel aborts and abrt determines it's a tainted
kernel, then it could pop up this list of additional sites and let the
user report the crash to
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> a. It actually has to communicate with a server, so whose hosting this
>> "other" bugzilla?
>
>
> I think the point here is that a user could configure ADDITIONAL
> bugzilla sites.
Do you have e
On 03/17/2015 02:41 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jd1008 wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module,
do
On 03/17/2015 02:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jd1008 wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree module isn't inst
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jd1008 wrote:
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree module isn't ins
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Why bother with this infrastructure if no one is going to look at the
>> reports or do anything about them?
>
>
> Why do you assume that nobody's going to pay attention to those bug reports?
Becau
On 03/17/2015 01:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Why bother with this infrastructure if no one is going to look at the
reports or do anything about them?
Why do you assume that nobody's going to pay attention to those bug reports?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, jd1008 wrote:
>
>
> On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>
>> On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
>>> mean that the out of tree module isn't instigating the problem thoug
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:11 PM, jd1008 wrote:
>
>
> On 03/16/2015 01:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, jd1008 wrote:
>>
>>> Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
>>> inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
>>> allowing thes ending of such reports
On 03/16/2015 05:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
Ed, even that is no help.
MY kernel is tainted by mods from rpmfusion. yet:
$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
0
So, what does that leave the user?
abrt says it is tainted, which is correct.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.
On 03/16/2015 02:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree module isn't instigating the problem though.
Agreed. That's why I suggested trying to duplicate the crash wit
On 03/16/2015 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44:16AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
Kernel modules can pretty much do whatever they like once
On 03/16/2015 01:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
I think this question needs to go to the Fedora devel@ list, or ma
On 03/16/2015 04:45 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 03/17/15 06:25, Joe Zeff wrote:
My laptop reports several kerneloops every time it boots. AFAIK, there's
nothing installed that taints the kernel, but 99% of the time abrt tells me
that the kernel is tainted and that I can't report it. Suggestions?
On 03/17/15 06:25, Joe Zeff wrote:
> My laptop reports several kerneloops every time it boots. AFAIK, there's
> nothing installed that taints the kernel, but 99% of the time abrt tells me
> that the kernel is tainted and that I can't report it. Suggestions? (If you
> need, I can get you a copy
On 03/17/15 07:43, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Crude but this should work
> # journalctl -b -l -o short-monotonic | grep -i "tainted"
That won't work since the string in the journal is "taints kernel"
--
If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedo
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 02:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>
>> Reboot into a stock kernel without the modules? Ask other people for
>> help in replicating? Contact the vendor of the binary module and ask
>> for their help?
>
>
> My laptop reports several ker
On 03/16/2015 02:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Reboot into a stock kernel without the modules? Ask other people for
help in replicating? Contact the vendor of the binary module and ask
for their help?
My laptop reports several kerneloops every time it boots. AFAIK,
there's nothing installed th
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:59:17PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> >That's a lot of obligation to put onto someone you are not paying. The
> >kernel maintainers have a huge and constantly growing pile of work. I
> >don't think it's unreasonable to ask for bug submitters to recreate the
> >crash on a stock
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
>> mean that the out of tree module isn't instigating the problem though.
>
>
> Agreed. That's why I suggested trying to d
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> out of tree kernel affects kernel behavior.
tree kernel ^module
--
Chris Murphy
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fe
On 03/16/2015 01:46 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
That's a lot of obligation to put onto someone you are not paying. The
kernel maintainers have a huge and constantly growing pile of work. I
don't think it's unreasonable to ask for bug submitters to recreate the
crash on a stock system.
What do you
On 03/16/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Just because the crash doesn't occur in an out of tree module, doesn't
mean that the out of tree module isn't instigating the problem though.
Agreed. That's why I suggested trying to duplicate the crash with an
untainted kernel.
--
users mailing l
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 09:58:54AM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> >Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
> >inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
> >allowing thes ending of such reports?
> I've been thinking the same thing. If nothing else, whoever is
> assigned to the bug should try
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44:16AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
> Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
> inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
> allowing thes ending of such reports?
Kernel modules can pretty much do whatever they like once they're
loaded; how do you demonstrate that t
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, jd1008 wrote:
> Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
> inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
> allowing thes ending of such reports?
I think this question needs to go to the Fedora devel@ list, or maybe
also kernel@ as a cross-post (explicitl
If it is a obvious bug, yes those are easy to find, the obvious bugs
also have lots of crashes tainted or untainted. The ones that always
get everyone in trouble are the ones were something modifies something
unrelated to it and causes someone else's code to crash in a bizarre
way.
On Mon, Mar 1
On 03/16/2015 11:29 AM, Roger Heflin wrote:
Recreating a rare crash even when you know the exact conditions that
caused the crash is very very difficult.I have been involved in
not so rare crashes (we had some machines of the exact same hw type
that all crashed randomly about 1x per week).
On 03/16/2015 10:58 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2015 09:44 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
I've been thinking the same thing. If nothing else, whoever is
assigned to the
Recreating a rare crash even when you know the exact conditions that
caused the crash is very very difficult.I have been involved in
not so rare crashes (we had some machines of the exact same hw type
that all crashed randomly about 1x per week). And duplicating that
crash tied up a test ma
On 03/16/2015 09:44 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
I've been thinking the same thing. If nothing else, whoever is assigned
to the bug should try to recreate the crash on a s
Many of us need akmods for our hardware.
But when the kernel crashes or ooops'es,
we are unable to send the crash report.
Since none of the crashes occur in the modules
inserted via akmods, why is the fedora abrt not
allowing thes ending of such reports?
At least provide a way for us to send t
52 matches
Mail list logo
