Re: 5.1, Data Corruption, Intel, Oh my! [patch] - Fatal trap 12

2003-08-14 Thread Terry Lambert
Bosko Milekic wrote: > > db> trace > > _mtx_lock_flags(0,0,c07aa287,11e,c0c21aaa) at _mtx_lock_flags+0x43 > > vm_fault(c102f000,c000,2,0,c08205c0) at vm_fault+0x2b4 > > trap_pfault(c0c21b9e,0,c4d8,10,c4d8) at trap_pfault+0x152 > > trap(6c200018,10,1bc40060,1c,0) at trap+0x30d > > ca

Re: 5.1, Data Corruption, Intel, Oh my! [patch] - Fatal trap 12

2003-08-14 Thread Peter Edwards
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 07:38, Terry Lambert wrote: > Peter Edwards wrote: > > > ... He might also want to look for any function pointer > > > that takes 5 arguments; > > > > Nice tactic, but misleading in this case, methinks. > > > > I assume your basing this on the 5 arguments shown in the backtr

Re: 5.1, Data Corruption, Intel, Oh my! [patch] - Fatal trap 12

2003-08-14 Thread Mark Johnston
Bosko Milekic wrote: > The information I'd like to see, if possible (private mail is OK): > > 1) Your hardware, UP or SMP. UP - the hardware is an IBM Thinkpad A31 with a Pentium 4 "M" chip. ACPI is disabled. > 2) Whether you have PAE turned on. PAE is not enabled. > 3) If you had the data cor

Re: 5.1, Data Corruption, Intel, Oh my! [patch] - Fatal trap 12

2003-08-14 Thread Peter Edwards
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 12:52, Terry Lambert wrote: > Bosko Milekic wrote: > > > db> trace > > > _mtx_lock_flags(0,0,c07aa287,11e,c0c21aaa) at _mtx_lock_flags+0x43 > > > vm_fault(c102f000,c000,2,0,c08205c0) at vm_fault+0x2b4 > > > trap_pfault(c0c21b9e,0,c4d8,10,c4d8) at trap_pfault+0x

Re: 5.1, Data Corruption, Intel, Oh my! [patch] - Fatal trap 12

2003-08-14 Thread Bosko Milekic
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:12:36AM -0500, Mark Johnston wrote: ... > Using $PIR table, 14 entries at 0xc00fdeb0 > apm0: on motherboard > kernel trap 12 with interrupts disabled > > > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode > fault virtual address = 0x0 > fault code = super

Re: 5.1, Data Corruption, Intel, Oh my! [patch] - Fatal trap 12

2003-08-14 Thread Terry Lambert
Peter Edwards wrote: > > ... He might also want to look for any function pointer > > that takes 5 arguments; > > Nice tactic, but misleading in this case, methinks. > > I assume your basing this on the 5 arguments shown in the backtrace. > The 5 arguments passed to the "function" at 0x5949 is pro