Re: U5 - Sarge with d-i rc2 netinstall failure
Joshua Kwan wrote: Nicolas Will wrote: |Partition check: |hda:end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 0 |end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 2 This'll be fixed soon, I knew about it a while ago and was simply waiting for a new Debian kernel source upload including security fixes to be uploaded. Looks like that has just happened, so things are forthcoming. |cramfs: wrong magic Similarly, this was just fixed. Kernel bugs ? d-i bugs ? Stay tuned... I will ! Any timeline ? Should I use a daily build of d-i when ready ? Thanks for the replies, to you and Martin. Now on to reading about 2.6's status on Sparc64... -- Nico http://rdo.homelinux.org
Re: U5 - Sarge with d-i rc2 netinstall failure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nicolas Will wrote: |Partition check: |hda:end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 0 |end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 2 This'll be fixed soon, I knew about it a while ago and was simply waiting for a new Debian kernel source upload including security fixes to be uploaded. Looks like that has just happened, so things are forthcoming. |cramfs: wrong magic Similarly, this was just fixed. Stay tuned... - -- Joshua Kwan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBQa/RIaOILr94RG8mAQLGkw/8CLgdPNFTbWQSRKpcdC56BLq0lT9fbl6p 8r7O65j2DgtjZoc3rDhUEwyMdHA71ZJBunYMDmWPyOYzfvM6uKfpbJOO/YkXuIK5 Xz4khzurDcojzCdDkeAmZHKDbENa8YxTqP+rtKd3D9crJz4velnOp5uVPKrK1v6P xqCC5MXOmsfXrK5p6WRDj4ju2ySIGnt1xRdl4KU6hpP21ZP3G9GaseSn1bHtD1x+ HGqkjHzxZhXxf90Nk+UerFqPtIDH8fCQ0dnc+1iVhrpn8a7cjzygjMFZ3IWMKBjG U+pM6+2huN/rB+UKNuaRRRctw3w/wFUvw8hPqY9QIOuJIkwh8xq/KfZ3Er2cb6tk nL7JbjdzE996pzx1aV6fcKHzkr4mkefi8C4ZtAs+pekBTH6Twc1X1n28zI4MhhxX goYFY+SEsO3lRXVAkOw07ANuP2Uxl3oCrWGQpW6cxKm3N5xs0MDt/fxyeGZ1XG71 C+73GmR+n4F0PLKYiNneogqjWSA4QvxY/UOp2G2f5lMybe74QU+szkC9llUis8Cv yrZo2ouD2v6pXVEYIYhW8zoXQOTXV7dEO8WhspIFy1q3WfSB9jnwODJ3Io+NQyjf 0ex2SkYwyuIpYmOxVEN2xwHeWF4whu9gpMQiIGcOkUPD2+TmKnsk6OaJyPXf94vL b4Tfunm0i/4= =6Q6v -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U5 - Sarge with d-i rc2 netinstall failure
> I'm trying to get Sarge on a plain vanilla Ultra 5. > > I'm using the RC2 release of the Debian-Installer Net-Install CD. > > I end up with the following: > Partition check: > hda:end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 0 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 2 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 4 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 6 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 8 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 10 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 12 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 14 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 0 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 2 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 4 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 6 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 8 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 10 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 12 > end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 14 > unable to read partition table > I've read hints of boot parameters involving devfs, but nothing real > definitive on that. > > Can anybody nudge me in the right direction? Sounds to me like a dead disk. Do you know for sure whether the disk you have in the Ultra 5 works? It might also be worth checking the archives for info on the problems with the IDE chip on Ultra-5's. IIRC the chip is buggy and some combinations of DMA and ATA speeds cause evil things to happen. HTH Cheers, - Martin -- Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Seasons change, things come to pass"
U5 - Sarge with d-i rc2 netinstall failure
Hi all, I'm trying to get Sarge on a plain vanilla Ultra 5. I'm using the RC2 release of the Debian-Installer Net-Install CD. I end up with the following: ok boot cdrom Resetting ... Sun Ultra 5/10 UPA/PCI (UltraSPARC-IIi 270MHz), No Keyboard OpenBoot 3.11, 128 MB memory installed, Serial #10493455. Ethernet address 8:0:20:a0:1e:f, Host ID: 80a01e0f. Rebooting with command: boot cdrom Boot device: /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:f File and args: SILO Version 1.4.8 \ Welcome to Debian GNU/Linux sarge! This is a Debian installation CDROM, built on 20041121. Keep it once you have installed your system, as you can boot from it to repair the system on your hard disk if that ever becomes necessary. WARNING: You should completely back up all of your hard disks before proceeding. The installation procedure can completely and irreversibly erase them! If you haven't made backups yet, remove the rescue CD from the drive and press L1-A to get back to the OpenBoot prompt. Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law. [ ENTER - Boot install ] [ Type "rescue" - Boot into rescue mode ] boot: Allocated 8 Megs of memory at 0x4000 for kernel Loaded kernel version 2.4.27 Loading initial ramdisk (2896142 bytes at 0x17C02000 phys, 0x40C0 virt)... | Remapping the kernel... Booting Linux... PROMLIB: Sun IEEE Boot Prom 3.11.12 1998/05/19 11:30 Linux version 2.4.27-1-sparc64 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3 .3.4 (Debian 1:3.3.4-7)) #1 Mon Aug 23 23:59:55 PDT 2004 ARCH: SUN4U Ethernet address: 08:00:20:a0:1e:0f On node 0 totalpages: 15521 zone(0): 16293 pages. zone(1): 0 pages. zone(2): 0 pages. Found CPU 0 (node=f006ce08,mid=0) Found 1 CPU prom device tree node(s). Kernel command line: root=/dev/rd/0 cdrom ramdisk_size=16384 devfs=mount rw Calibrating delay loop... 539.03 BogoMIPS Memory: 122600k available (1880k kernel code, 296k data, 160k init) [f80 0,17f4a000] Dentry cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 5, 262144 bytes) Inode cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 4, 131072 bytes) Mount cache hash table entries: 512 (order: 0, 8192 bytes) Buffer cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 0, 8192 bytes) Page-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 131072 bytes) POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX PCI: Probing for controllers. PCI: Found SABRE, main regs at 01fe, wsync at 01fe1c20 SABRE: Shared PCI config space at 01fe0100 SABRE: DVMA at c000 [2000] PCI0(PBMA): Bus running at 33MHz PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 1] slot[ 1] map[0] to INO[21] PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 1] slot[ 2] map[0] to INO[0f] PCI-IRQ: Routing bus[ 1] slot[ 3] map[0] to INO[20] PCI0(PBMB): Bus running at 33MHz ebus0: [auxio] [power] [SUNW,pll] [se] [su] [su] [ecpp] [fdthree] [eeprom] [flas hprom] [SUNW,CS4231] PCIO serial driver version 1.54 su(mouse) at 0x1fff13062f8 (irq = 4,7ea) is a 16550A Sun Mouse-Systems mouse driver version 1.00 su(kbd) at 0x1fff13083f8 (irq = 9,7e9) is a 16550A keyboard: not present SAB82532 serial driver version 1.65 ttyS00 at 0x1fff140 (irq = 12,7eb) is a SAB82532 V3.2 ttyS01 at 0x1fff1400040 (irq = 12,7eb) is a SAB82532 V3.2 Console: ttyS0 (SAB82532) power: Control reg at 01fff1724000 ... powerd running. Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4 Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039 Initializing RT netlink socket Starting kswapd VFS: Disk quotas vdquot_6.5.1 alloc_area_pte: page already exists alloc_area_pte: page already exists devfs: v1.12c (20020818) Richard Gooch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) devfs: boot_options: 0x1 pty: 256 Unix98 ptys configured rtc_init: no PC rtc found Floppy drive(s): fd0 is 1.44M FDC 0 is a National Semiconductor PC87306 RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 16384K size 1024 blocksize Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 7.00beta4-2.4 ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with idebus=xx CMD646: IDE controller at PCI slot 01:03.0 CMD646: chipset revision 3 CMD646: chipset revision 0x03, MultiWord DMA Force Limited CMD646: 100% native mode on irq 4,7e0 ide0: BM-DMA at 0x1fe02c00020-0x1fe02c00027, BIOS settings: hda:pio, hdb:pio ide1: BM-DMA at 0x1fe02c00028-0x1fe02c0002f, BIOS settings: hdc:pio, hdd:pio hda: ST34342A, ATA DISK drive ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with idebus=xx hdc: CRD-8240B, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive ide0 at 0x1fe02c0-0x1fe02c7,0x1fe02ca on irq 4,7e0 ide1 at 0x1fe02c00010-0x1fe02c00017,0x1fe02c0001a on irq 4,7e0 (shared with ide0 ) Partition check: hda:end_request: I/O error, dev 03:00 (hda), sector 0 end_request: I/O e
Re: XFree crashing on kernel 2.4.28
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ls /proc/bus/pci :00 :01 :02 devices [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# It appears that this patch will be ineffective for my problem if I understand properly what it is doing. Yes, I'm afraid so. I really hope that Richard's idea will work out (good work, btw). Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC
Re: X11 crashing on 2.4.28
At Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:41:46 +, Richard Mortimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 19:27, Ron Murray wrote: > > At Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:45:59 -0500, > > Ron Murray wrote: > >We have a minor problem. Richard's patch seems to refer to a > > pristine xfree86-4.3.0 source. > > Damn! There are two similar #if defined lines. I made the patch against > the wrong one! > > I also accept that I did make the patch against pristine sources - > although in this case it means that you spotted my mistake. > > I still stand by my analysis. Hopefully the new patch (below) will work. > Note I've taken the same approach as the one that my original patch > clashed with. Basically I've removed the check for ia64 because I'm > assuming that the non-executable issue could in future apply to all > linux versions. > > Richard Yep, I agree that you've probably found the problem. After I wrote my previous post, I did some poking around with gdb on the XFree86 executable. I found a sequence of bytes that looked a lot like the ones you posted earlier, a little further on than you had (but my current copy of XFree86 has lots of debugging code inbuilt). They even had a call to malloc() in the middle of them. gdb claimed that the code was in the middle of ELFLoadModule(), so I looked, and there it was, complete with the same #ifdef you found earlier. I set up the patch, started the build, and went home. With any luck, I'll have a new (and hopefully functional) set of X packages when I get to work in the morning. Only difference was that I didn't turn it on for all Linux, just for ia86 and sparc. Wasn't sure whether it was a good idea or not. I'll let everyone know how it went. Thanks for finding it. .Ron -- Ron Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.rjmx.net/~ron GPG Public Key Fingerprint: F2C1 FC47 5EF7 0317 133C D66B 8ADA A3C4 D86C 74DE
Re: XFree crashing on kernel 2.4.28
Mr. Smakov, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# ls /proc/bus/pci :00 :01 :02 devices [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# It appears that this patch will be ineffective for my problem if I understand properly what it is doing. --- Jurij Smakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Ron Murray wrote: > > > Colour me doubtful about this as a fix. Its bug report has an > XFree86.log > > that actually appears to scan the PCI bus, then does lots of other > things > > before reporting "no screens found". In contrast, both the logs > from the > > originator of this thread and the XFree86.log in bug #280384 show > the crash > > occurring immediately after loading the pcidata module, with no > attempt to > > scan the PCI bus. That is also my experience, as evidenced by the > log in my > > own post to bug #280384. They don't look like the same problem to > me at all. > > Hi, > > I have looked more carefully at bug 279436. The fix which Branden > Robinson > referred to was supposed to take care of the problem on sparc64 when > the > machine does not have a PCI bus numbered zero. Can those who > experienced > the crashes please post the contents of their /proc/bus/pci > directory? If > it looks like this: > > $ ls /proc/bus/pci/ > 40/ 60/ 80/ 81/ devices > > i.e. there is no '00' entry, then there is hope, that the patch will > actually do something useful. If there is a '00' entry, then we are > looking at a completely different problem. > > Best regards, > > Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: debian on a sun enterprise 250
Title: debian on a sun enterprise 250 The light comes on only when I boot into Linux on the E250 I have. I don't have the blinking during post. I am going to try to patch it with a file that Eric Brower gave me. I haven't installed it yet. You may want to do a check on the machine if it is giving you this light during post. Mine is all off through that stage and comes on and stays on after booting to Linux. There are probably others here with more knowledge on it than I. I will post my results on the patch, if I don't screw the machine up doing it. Thanks again Eric. Shawn Huston - Original Message - From: james derry To: debian-sparc@lists.debian.org Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:22 PM Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] debian on a sun enterprise 250 i've already posted this on debian-user@lists.debian.org and was advised to post it here. please forgive duplication, if you've already received this message.i've recently taken over sysadmin duties for a sun enterprise 250 running debian. the 250's has frontpanels LEDs, and one on this machine, the general fault LED, burns constant yellow. online documentation for the hardware at http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/General/LEDs/E250_LEDs.html says:This yellow LED blinks slowly while the system runs its power-on self-test (POST) diagnostics and blinks rapidly during OpenBoot diagnostic (OBDiag) tests. It lights steadily when any fault is detected (including a fault also reported by any other LED).Q: could this be a normal state for enterprise 250s running debian? or is the LED truly reporting that a fault has been detected?thanks,james
Re: debian on a sun enterprise 250
[cc'd to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Take a look at my post regarding this issue: http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2004/11/msg2.html I'll offer you the envctrltwo driver as well, with the understanding that there are a few remaining issues to be addressed. I can't seem to find willing testers, despite several requests. E On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:22:14 -0600, james derry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i've already posted this on debian-user@lists.debian.org and was advised to > post it here. please forgive duplication, if you've already received this > message. > > i've recently taken over sysadmin duties for a sun enterprise 250 running > debian. the 250's has frontpanels LEDs, and one on this machine, the general > fault LED, burns constant yellow. online documentation for the hardware at > http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/General/LEDs/E250_LEDs.html says: > > This yellow LED blinks slowly while the system runs its power-on self-test > (POST) diagnostics and blinks rapidly during OpenBoot diagnostic (OBDiag) > tests. It lights steadily when any fault is detected (including a fault also > reported by any other LED). > > Q: could this be a normal state for enterprise 250s running debian? or is > the LED truly reporting that a fault has been detected? > > thanks, > james > -- E
Re: X11 crashing on 2.4.28
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 19:27, Ron Murray wrote:
> At Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:45:59 -0500,
> Ron Murray wrote:
>We have a minor problem. Richard's patch seems to refer to a
> pristine xfree86-4.3.0 source.
Damn! There are two similar #if defined lines. I made the patch against
the wrong one!
I also accept that I did make the patch against pristine sources -
although in this case it means that you spotted my mistake.
I still stand by my analysis. Hopefully the new patch (below) will work.
Note I've taken the same approach as the one that my original patch
clashed with. Basically I've removed the check for ia64 because I'm
assuming that the non-executable issue could in future apply to all
linux versions.
Richard
--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c.orig
2004-12-02 22:29:26.0 +
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c 2004-12-02
22:38:37.0 +
@@ -2937,7 +2937,7 @@
ErrorF( "Unable to allocate ELF sections\n" );
return NULL;
}
-# if defined(linux) && defined(__ia64__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
+# if defined(linux) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
{
unsigned long page_size = getpagesize();
unsigned long round;
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian on a sun enterprise 250
Title: debian on a sun enterprise 250 i've already posted this on debian-user@lists.debian.org and was advised to post it here. please forgive duplication, if you've already received this message. i've recently taken over sysadmin duties for a sun enterprise 250 running debian. the 250's has frontpanels LEDs, and one on this machine, the general fault LED, burns constant yellow. online documentation for the hardware at http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/General/LEDs/E250_LEDs.html says: This yellow LED blinks slowly while the system runs its power-on self-test (POST) diagnostics and blinks rapidly during OpenBoot diagnostic (OBDiag) tests. It lights steadily when any fault is detected (including a fault also reported by any other LED). Q: could this be a normal state for enterprise 250s running debian? or is the LED truly reporting that a fault has been detected? thanks, james
Re: X11 crashing on 2.4.28
[Sorry for breaking the thread and possible line-wrapping] Ron Murray wrote: >Richard, does this look likely? Are there any other places that > could stuff up the exec bit? > > .Ron Actually, there is one place. The following change has been introduced when going from 2.4.27 to 2.4.28: diff -aur linux-2.4.27/arch/sparc64/kernel/itlb_base.S linux-2.4.28/arch/sparc64/kernel/itlb_base.S --- linux-2.4.27/arch/sparc64/kernel/itlb_base.S2003-06-13 10:51:32.0 -0400 +++ linux-2.4.28/arch/sparc64/kernel/itlb_base.S2004-11-17 06:54:21.0 -0500 @@ -41,6 +41,9 @@ CREATE_VPTE_OFFSET2(%g4, %g6) ! Create VPTE offset ldxa[%g3 + %g6] ASI_P, %g5 ! Load VPTE 1: brgez,pn%g5, 3f ! Not valid, branch out +sethi %hi(_PAGE_EXEC), %g4! Delay-slot + andcc %g5, %g4, %g0 ! Executable? + be,pn %xcc, 3f! Nope, branch. nop! Delay-slot 2: stxa%g5, [%g0] ASI_ITLB_DATA_IN ! Load PTE into TLB retry ! Trap return @@ -73,9 +76,6 @@ nop nop nop - nop - nop - nop CREATE_VPTE_NOP #undef CREATE_VPTE_OFFSET1 Since it is sparc64-specific and has to do with EXEC checking, it might be worth trying to rebuild the 2.4.28 kernel with this change reverted and see if it helps. Best regards, Jurij Smakov http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/
Re: X11 crashing on 2.4.28
At Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:45:59 -0500,
Ron Murray wrote:
> > Anyone fancy compiling a new xserver binary?
> >
>
>I'll set one going before I leave work this afternoon. Should have
> completed by tomorrow morning.
>
We have a minor problem. Richard's patch seems to refer to a
pristine xfree86-4.3.0 source. When I came to check the patch location
on a build tree that had had the Debian patches applied, I found it to
be quite different. Specifically, the line Richard wanted to change
was now
# if defined(linux) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
instead of
# if defined(linux) && defined(__ia64__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
Clearly, there's a Debian patch involved here. I found it at
debian/patches/071_nonexecutable_malloced_mem.diff
and it goes:
> $Id: 071_nonexecutable_malloced_mem.diff 1044 2004-02-16 17:40:33Z branden $
>
> This patch fixes the assumption that data returned by malloc() is
> executable. In upstream revision 1.43, the assumption was fixed for
> ia64 only. We understand it is Linus' position that programs that
> assume data to be executable are broken, so we enable this code for
> all Linux platforms.
>
> Original patch (before upstream applied its own version) was by David
> Mosberger.
> diff -urN xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c
> xc.new/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c
> --- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c 2004-02-07
> 17:33:29.0 -0500
> +++ xc.new/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c
> 2004-02-07 17:29:03.0 -0500
> @@ -957,7 +957,7 @@
> ErrorF( "ELFCreateGOT() Unable to reallocate memory\n"
> );
> return FALSE;
> }
> -# if defined(linux) && defined(__ia64__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
> +# if defined(linux) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
> {
> unsigned long page_size = getpagesize();
> unsigned long round;
... which would indicate that Richard's suggestion is already in
the current Debian package. I'd made a build log when I built the
package here, and I have
> Applying patch debian/patches/071_nonexecutable_malloced_mem.diff ...
> successful.
in it, so I'm sure it's in the build.
Richard, does this look likely? Are there any other places that
could stuff up the exec bit?
.Ron
--
Ron Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.rjmx.net/~ron
GPG Public Key Fingerprint: F2C1 FC47 5EF7 0317 133C D66B 8ADA A3C4 D86C 74DE
Re: X11 crashing on 2.4.28
At Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:02:58 +, Richard Mortimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, I think that I've found the problem. The XFree86 binary does its own > object loading and on sparc it is failing to set the PROT_EXEC bit when > mapping executable code. This is falling over a change in the kernel > which checks the executable bit and gives a Segmentation Fault. > > Full rationale, explanation and proposed patch below. ... Wow. Well done! That's certainly consistent with what I see. > > Anyone fancy compiling a new xserver binary? > I'll set one going before I leave work this afternoon. Should have completed by tomorrow morning. .Ron -- Ron Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.rjmx.net/~ron GPG Public Key Fingerprint: F2C1 FC47 5EF7 0317 133C D66B 8ADA A3C4 D86C 74DE
Re: XFree crashing on kernel 2.4.28
At Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:06:28 +0100, Admar Schoonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:44:07AM -0500, Jurij Smakov wrote: > > Can those who experienced > > the crashes please post the contents of their /proc/bus/pci directory? If > > it looks like this: > > > > $ ls /proc/bus/pci/ > > 40/ 60/ 80/ 81/ devices > > My affected sun blade 100 looks quite different: > $ ls /proc/bus/pci/ > :00 :01 devices > > I don't have access to my non affected ultra 5 atm, so I can't check that one. > > The sun blade 100 runs linux 2.6.9 btw. Yes, 2.6 kernels do it differently. Mine looks like: total 0 dr-xr-xr-x 5 root root 0 Dec 2 11:42 ./ dr-xr-xr-x 5 root root 0 Dec 2 11:42 ../ dr-xr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Dec 2 11:42 :80/ dr-xr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Dec 2 11:42 :81/ dr-xr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Dec 2 11:42 0001:00/ -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Dec 2 11:42 devices .Ron -- Ron Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.rjmx.net/~ron GPG Public Key Fingerprint: F2C1 FC47 5EF7 0317 133C D66B 8ADA A3C4 D86C 74DE
Re: XFree crashing on kernel 2.4.28
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:44:07AM -0500, Jurij Smakov wrote: > Can those who experienced > the crashes please post the contents of their /proc/bus/pci directory? If > it looks like this: > > $ ls /proc/bus/pci/ > 40/ 60/ 80/ 81/ devices My affected sun blade 100 looks quite different: $ ls /proc/bus/pci/ :00 :01 devices I don't have access to my non affected ultra 5 atm, so I can't check that one. The sun blade 100 runs linux 2.6.9 btw. Admar
Re: X11 crashing on 2.4.28
Ok, I think that I've found the problem. The XFree86 binary does its own
object loading and on sparc it is failing to set the PROT_EXEC bit when
mapping executable code. This is falling over a change in the kernel
which checks the executable bit and gives a Segmentation Fault.
Full rationale, explanation and proposed patch below.
Richard
I was looking through the changes between 2.4.27 and 2.4.28 and there is
a patch that adds a check that executed code is actually mapped as
executable (one bit of it is)
diff -urN linux-2.4.27/arch/sparc64/mm/fault.c
linux-2.4.28/arch/sparc64/mm/fault.c
--- linux-2.4.27/arch/sparc64/mm/fault.c2004-08-07
16:26:04.0 -0700
+++ linux-2.4.28/arch/sparc64/mm/fault.c2004-11-17
03:54:21.156379721 -0800
@@ -404,6 +404,16 @@
*/
good_area:
si_code = SEGV_ACCERR;
+
+ /* If we took a ITLB miss on a non-executable page, catch
+* that here.
+*/
+ if ((fault_code & FAULT_CODE_ITLB) && !(vma->vm_flags &
VM_EXEC)) {
+ BUG_ON(address != regs->tpc);
+ BUG_ON(regs->tstate & TSTATE_PRIV);
+ goto bad_area;
+ }
+
if (fault_code & FAULT_CODE_WRITE) {
if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
goto bad_area;
Now given that this reports a SIGSEGV if you hit this issue (see
SEGV_ACCERR at the top of the patch) I figured that this would be
something that could be triggered.
Now looking at the broken strace from 2.4.28 we see two mmaps during the
loading of module pcidata. These correspond to the text(code) and data
sections of the binary.
mmap(NULL, 163840, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1,
0) = 0x70272000
lseek(5, 229836, SEEK_SET) = 229836
read(5, "\0pci_vendor_003d\0pci_vendor_0e11"..., 157024) = 157024
brk(0) = 0x274000
brk(0x296000) = 0x296000
mmap(NULL, 139264, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1,
0) = 0x7029a000
lseek(5, 380, SEEK_SET) = 380
read(5, "\201\303\340\10\220\20 \1\201\303\340\10\1\0\0\0\235\343"...,
1612) = 1612
Note that neither has PROT_EXEC set in the mmap. The second one is the
text section that really needs it.
Now looking at the XFree86 code in
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c
This gets memory for the data in one of two ways (chosen at compile
time):
xf86loadermalloc - actually a call to the glibc2 malloc
or
mmap.
The mmap specifies PROT_EXEC but I've disassembled the XFree86 binary
and it seems to use the xf86loadermalloc option.
77514: 90 00 40 08 add %g1, %o0, %o0
77518: 40 05 69 49 call 0x1d1a3c
7751c: d0 24 60 48 st %o0, [ %l1 + 0x48 ]
77520: 84 10 00 08 mov %o0, %g2
77524: 80 a2 20 00 cmp %o0, 0
77528: 02 80 00 77 be 0x77704
Apologies to those who don't read SPARC assembler!
The call at 77518 is a call to malloc (from the symbol table)
001d1a3c DF *UND* 0234 GLIBC_2.0 malloc
I'm guessing that malloc doesn't set PROT_EXEC (people generally don't
want it and it would create a security risk).
Now in the elfloader.c file there is a bit of conditional code for ia64
and OpenBSD that does an mprotect to add PROT_EXEC to the code.
So it looks quite clear to me that we need to do the same for sparc.
i.e. apply the following patch (untested I'm afraid)
--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c.orig
2004-12-02 16:56:31.0 +
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c 2004-12-02
16:57:42.0 +
@@ -893,7 +893,7 @@
ErrorF( "ELFCreateGOT() Unable to reallocate memory\n"
);
return FALSE;
}
-# if defined(linux) && defined(__ia64__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
+# if defined(linux) && (defined(__ia64__) || defined(__sparc__)) ||
defined(__OpenBSD__)
{
unsigned long page_size = getpagesize();
unsigned long round;
Anyone fancy compiling a new xserver binary?
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 06:23, Jurzitza, Dieter wrote:
> Dear listmembers,
> I can confirm for my U60 that the XFree86-debug server comes up on 2.4.28. So
> I seem to be consistent with what Admar said and what Ron has been saying.
> What makes me wonder, though, is why does the binary loader work with 2.4.27
> and does not work with 2.4.28.
> And, moreover, if it is a loader issue it seems more plausible to me that I
> can observe additional side effects on 2.4.28 not being related to X11 (like
> very long reaction times on ping / ssh requests, not settling a network
> connection for quite a while)
> A propably dumb question:
> is that binary loader a simple file? would it be possible to get that loader
> from another version (like Debian Woody), or is it buried deep down in the
> kernel?
> Thank you for your inputs,
> take care
>
>
>
> Dieter Jurzitza
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: XFree crashing on kernel 2.4.28
Hi Jurij, I loved your idea :-). However, I do have a bus 00. We have to search for something else. See files attached, one from kernel 2.4.26, one from kernel 2.4.28 / U60 / SMP / 512M. They are identical, and I do have a bus 0. Thanks for your inputs, take care Dieter -Original Message- From: Jurij Smakov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:44 PM *** Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschuetzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und loeschen Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the contents in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. *** ls_proc_bus_devices_2.4.26 Description: ls_proc_bus_devices_2.4.26 ls_proc_bus_devices_2.4.28 Description: ls_proc_bus_devices_2.4.28
Re: fet FTBFS on sparc
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Radu Spineanu wrote: Hello Could someone please give me a hint on how to fix this ? For the record, this problem has already been reported as bug #268450. Best regards, Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC
Re: XFree crashing on kernel 2.4.28
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Ron Murray wrote: Colour me doubtful about this as a fix. Its bug report has an XFree86.log that actually appears to scan the PCI bus, then does lots of other things before reporting "no screens found". In contrast, both the logs from the originator of this thread and the XFree86.log in bug #280384 show the crash occurring immediately after loading the pcidata module, with no attempt to scan the PCI bus. That is also my experience, as evidenced by the log in my own post to bug #280384. They don't look like the same problem to me at all. Hi, I have looked more carefully at bug 279436. The fix which Branden Robinson referred to was supposed to take care of the problem on sparc64 when the machine does not have a PCI bus numbered zero. Can those who experienced the crashes please post the contents of their /proc/bus/pci directory? If it looks like this: $ ls /proc/bus/pci/ 40/ 60/ 80/ 81/ devices i.e. there is no '00' entry, then there is hope, that the patch will actually do something useful. If there is a '00' entry, then we are looking at a completely different problem. Best regards, Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC
X11 crashing on 2.4.28
Dear listmembers, I can confirm for my U60 that the XFree86-debug server comes up on 2.4.28. So I seem to be consistent with what Admar said and what Ron has been saying. What makes me wonder, though, is why does the binary loader work with 2.4.27 and does not work with 2.4.28. And, moreover, if it is a loader issue it seems more plausible to me that I can observe additional side effects on 2.4.28 not being related to X11 (like very long reaction times on ping / ssh requests, not settling a network connection for quite a while) A propably dumb question: is that binary loader a simple file? would it be possible to get that loader from another version (like Debian Woody), or is it buried deep down in the kernel? Thank you for your inputs, take care Dieter Jurzitza -- HARMAN BECKER AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS Dr.-Ing. Dieter Jurzitza Manager Hardware Systems System Development Industriegebiet Ittersbach Becker-Göring Str. 16 D-76307 Karlsbad / Germany Phone: +49 (0)7248 71-1577 Fax: +49 (0)7248 71-1216 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.becker.de *** Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschuetzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und loeschen Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the contents in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. ***
