On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 08:22 -0700, James Smart wrote:
> On 8/27/2019 10:02 PM, Abdul Haleem wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > linux-next kernel 5.3.0-rc1 failed to boot with kernel Oops on Power 9
> > box
> >
> > I see a recent changes to lpfc code was from commit
> > 10541f03 scsi: lpfc: Update
On 8/27/2019 10:02 PM, Abdul Haleem wrote:
Greetings,
linux-next kernel 5.3.0-rc1 failed to boot with kernel Oops on Power 9
box
I see a recent changes to lpfc code was from commit
10541f03 scsi: lpfc: Update lpfc version to 12.4.0.0
Recent boot logs:
[..snip..]
see
Greeting's
linux-next kernel booted with kernel Oops on powerpc machine.
Machine Type: Power 8 [bare-metal & PowerVM LPAR]
kernel version: 4.15.0-rc7-next-20180115
test: Boot
config: attached
bootlogs:
-
ses 0:0:3:0: Attached Enclosure device
ses 0:0:4:0: Attached Enclosure device
Greeting's
linux-next kernel booted with kernel Oops on powerpc machine.
Machine Type: Power 8 [bare-metal & PowerVM LPAR]
kernel version: 4.15.0-rc7-next-20180115
test: Boot
config: attached
bootlogs:
-
ses 0:0:3:0: Attached Enclosure device
ses 0:0:4:0: Attached Enclosure device
Hi Guys,
I just found that sometimes v4.12-rc6 kernel hang happens during
booting, please see the following stack trace:
[ OK ] Listening on LVM2 poll daemon socket.
INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
0-...: (0 ticks this GP) idle=732/140/0
softirq=1182/1186 fqs
Hi Guys,
I just found that sometimes v4.12-rc6 kernel hang happens during
booting, please see the following stack trace:
[ OK ] Listening on LVM2 poll daemon socket.
INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
0-...: (0 ticks this GP) idle=732/140/0
softirq=1182/1186 fqs
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 14:48 +0530, Abdul Haleem wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mainline boot is broken on PowerPC bare metal with below traces:
> Machine Type : Power 8 Bare metal
>
> [ OK ] Mounted Debug File System.
> [ OK ] Started Nameserver information manager.
> [ OK ] Started LVM2 metadata
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 14:48 +0530, Abdul Haleem wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mainline boot is broken on PowerPC bare metal with below traces:
> Machine Type : Power 8 Bare metal
>
> [ OK ] Mounted Debug File System.
> [ OK ] Started Nameserver information manager.
> [ OK ] Started LVM2 metadata
Hi,
Mainline boot is broken on PowerPC bare metal with below traces:
Machine Type : Power 8 Bare metal
[ OK ] Mounted Debug File System.
[ OK ] Started Nameserver information manager.
[ OK ] Started LVM2 metadata daemon.
Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address
Hi,
Mainline boot is broken on PowerPC bare metal with below traces:
Machine Type : Power 8 Bare metal
[ OK ] Mounted Debug File System.
[ OK ] Started Nameserver information manager.
[ OK ] Started LVM2 metadata daemon.
Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:39 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On December 8, 2015 12:30:06 PM PST, Kees Cook wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:25:57PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:39 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On December 8, 2015 12:30:06 PM PST, Kees Cook wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:25:57PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> If we add this for not-nx, I would like to add it for not-rodata too.
The W+X thing?
I was under the impression we want to fix all those so that the ptdump
check doesn't fire anymore.
> I've never seen anyone actually use it. I was
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:39:14PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Actually I think of it much more as a debug option - being able to
> mimic NX-unaware hardware and to track down problems in the field.
Considering it can be dangerous when exposed to the user, should we hide
it behind a "Kernel
On December 8, 2015 12:30:06 PM PST, Kees Cook wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:25:57PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thank you pointing that out.
>>> >
>>> >
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:25:57PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you pointing that out.
>> >
>> > linux-4.4-rc3 booted without a problem on a real server even with XD
>>
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:25:57PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> >
> > Thank you pointing that out.
> >
> > linux-4.4-rc3 booted without a problem on a real server even with XD
> > turned off by the firmware. I didn't notice this before
On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>
> Thank you pointing that out.
>
> linux-4.4-rc3 booted without a problem on a real server even with XD
> turned off by the firmware. I didn't notice this before because I was
> using an older version of the kernel on the real server, and
On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>
> Thank you pointing that out.
>
> linux-4.4-rc3 booted without a problem on a real server even with XD
> turned off by the firmware. I didn't notice this before because I was
> using an older version of the kernel on the real server, and
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:25:57PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> >
> > Thank you pointing that out.
> >
> > linux-4.4-rc3 booted without a problem on a real server even with XD
> > turned off by the firmware. I didn't notice this before
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:25:57PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you pointing that out.
>> >
>> > linux-4.4-rc3 booted without a problem on a real server
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> If we add this for not-nx, I would like to add it for not-rodata too.
The W+X thing?
I was under the impression we want to fix all those so that the ptdump
check doesn't fire anymore.
> I've never seen anyone actually use it. I was
On December 8, 2015 12:30:06 PM PST, Kees Cook wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:25:57PM +, Matt Fleming wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec, at 11:10:43PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thank you
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 12:39:14PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Actually I think of it much more as a debug option - being able to
> mimic NX-unaware hardware and to track down problems in the field.
Considering it can be dangerous when exposed to the user, should we hide
it behind a "Kernel
Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec, at 11:58:33PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> The kernel panics early in boot on a x86_64 server if the eXecute
>> Disable (XD) bit is set to disabled in the uEFI firmware. The message
>> in the kernel log buffer looks like below.
>>
Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec, at 11:58:33PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> The kernel panics early in boot on a x86_64 server if the eXecute
>> Disable (XD) bit is set to disabled in the uEFI firmware. The message
>> in the kernel log buffer looks like below.
>>
On Thu, 03 Dec, at 11:58:33PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> The kernel panics early in boot on a x86_64 server if the eXecute
> Disable (XD) bit is set to disabled in the uEFI firmware. The message
> in the kernel log buffer looks like below.
>
On Thu, 03 Dec, at 11:58:33PM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> The kernel panics early in boot on a x86_64 server if the eXecute
> Disable (XD) bit is set to disabled in the uEFI firmware. The message
> in the kernel log buffer looks like below.
>
The kernel panics early in boot on a x86_64 server if the eXecute
Disable (XD) bit is set to disabled in the uEFI firmware. The message
in the kernel log buffer looks like below.
[0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper
The kernel panics early in boot on a x86_64 server if the eXecute
Disable (XD) bit is set to disabled in the uEFI firmware. The message
in the kernel log buffer looks like below.
[0.00] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 04:41:24PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:59:20AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> > But what about creation of a new program which can call kexec_load()
> > and execute an unsigned kernel. Doesn't look like that will be
> > prevented using IMA.
>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 04:41:24PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:59:20AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
But what about creation of a new program which can call kexec_load()
and execute an unsigned kernel. Doesn't look like that will be
prevented using IMA.
Right.
ssed)
>Data Size:623896 Bytes = 609.3 kB
>Load Address: 0b008000
>Entry Point: 0b008000
>Verifying Checksum ... OK
> OK
> No initrd
> ## Transferring control to Linux (at address 0b008000) ...
>
> Starting kernel ...
&
0b008000) ...
Starting kernel ...
Uncompressing Linux... done, booting
the kernel.
Linux version 2.6.18-DRM ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.0.0
(DENX ELDK 4.1 4.0.0)) #34
0b008000) ...
Starting kernel ...
Uncompressing Linux... done, booting
the kernel.
Linux version 2.6.18-DRM ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.0.0
(DENX ELDK 4.1 4.0.0)) #34
: 0b008000
Verifying Checksum ... OK
OK
No initrd
## Transferring control to Linux (at address 0b008000) ...
Starting kernel ...
Uncompressing Linux... done,
booting the kernel
Summary of error:
insmod error inserting '/lib/ata_piix.ko': -1 Unknown symbol in module
ERROR: /bin/insmod exited abnormally!
Mounting root filesystem
mount: error 19 mounting ext3
mount: error 2 mounting none
Switching to new root
switchroot: mount failed: 22
umount /initrd/dev failed: 2
Summary of error:
insmod error inserting '/lib/ata_piix.ko': -1 Unknown symbol in module
ERROR: /bin/insmod exited abnormally!
Mounting root filesystem
mount: error 19 mounting ext3
mount: error 2 mounting none
Switching to new root
switchroot: mount failed: 22
umount /initrd/dev failed: 2
38 matches
Mail list logo