On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:42:36 -0700
Stuart Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I CC: this to the lkml)
> Did you find a resolution to your posting regarding,
>
> "OOPS in 2.6.19.1, connected to nfs4 and autofs4"
>
> We just had a 2.6.20.11 kernel crash with a sim
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 04:25:09PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just read about the subjects.
> I have a firewall which has some issues.
> First it was a VIA CL6000 (c3).
> Now it is a EK8000 (c3-2) with different power supply, RAM and board of
> course. Still I see strange thin
Hello,
I just read about the subjects.
I have a firewall which has some issues.
First it was a VIA CL6000 (c3).
Now it is a EK8000 (c3-2) with different power supply, RAM and board of
course. Still I see strange things sometimes. Crashes, hangs, etc. Now
and then. Not too often.
I have in .config
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 04:48:43PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:28, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTE
On Sunday 31 December 2006 21:43, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:29:15 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > Can you post disassembly of pipe_poll() for both the one that crashes
> > > and the one that doesn't? Use 'objdump -D -r fs/pipe.o' s
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:29:15 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > Can you post disassembly of pipe_poll() for both the one that crashes
> > and the one that doesn't? Use 'objdump -D -r fs/pipe.o' so we get the
> > relocation info and post just the one functio
On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:27, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:35PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 28 Decembe
On Sunday 31 December 2006 16:28, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wr
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:29:15PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also tr
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:35PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
On Saturday 30 December 2006 16:59, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> I have compiled GCC 3.4.6 and compiled 2.6.19 with an identical config
> using this compiler (but the same binutils), and will report back if it
> crashes. My bet is that it won't, however.
Still fine after >24 hours. Linux 2.6.19
On Saturday 30 December 2006 18:06, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> > I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
> > a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
> > interrupt, but that's not likely.
>
> This looks rather strange.
[snip]
> 2) Kernel modu
On Saturday 30 December 2006 17:21, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also tried toggling
> > "optimize for size", various debug options. 2.6.19 compiled with
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:21:03 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
Any ideas?
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0009
83 ca 10 or $0x10,%edx
3b
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:59:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> I've eliminated 2.6.19.1 as the culprit, and also tried toggling "optimize
> for
> size", various debug options. 2.6.19 compiled with GCC 4.1.1 on an Via
> Nehemiah C3-2 seems to crash in pipe_
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:14, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the
> > > > running ke
On Thursday 28 December 2006 04:02, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the running
> > > kernel, the addresses have changed slightly. There's no xchg there
> > > either:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 02:41, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
> > Here's a current decompilation of vmlinux/pipe_poll() from the running
> > kernel, the addresses have changed slightly. There's no xchg there
> > either:
>
> Could you reproduce the bug by the new kernel, so we could get the exact
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 12:35 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 December 2006 02:07, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Call Trace:
> > > [] do_sys_poll+0x253/0x480
> > > [] sys_poll+0x33/0x50
> > > [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> > > [] 0xb7f26402
> > >
On Wednesday 27 December 2006 02:07, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
[snip]
> > Call Trace:
> > [] do_sys_poll+0x253/0x480
> > [] sys_poll+0x33/0x50
> > [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> > [] 0xb7f26402
> > ===
> > Code: 58 01 00 00 0f 4f c2 09 c1 89 c8 83 c8 08 85 db 0f 44 c8 8b 5d
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 15:40 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 December 2006 14:21, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take this
> seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware p
On Sunday 24 December 2006 04:23, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
[snip]
> Anyway, post your complete .config.
Config attached.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
Final year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel versio
On Sunday 24 December 2006 04:23, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:40:46 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take
> > this seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware pro
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 14:21, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any ideas?
Pretty much like clockwork, it happened again. I think it's time to take this
seriously as a software bug, and not some hardware problem. I've ran kernels
since 2.6.0 on this machine without such crashes, and
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 GMT, Alistair John Strachan said:
> Seems pretty unlikely on a 4 year old Via Epia. Never had any problems with it
> before now.
>
> Maybe a cosmic ray event? ;-)
More likely a stray alpha particle from a radioactive decay in the actual chip
casing - I saw some resear
On Thursday 21 December 2006 08:05, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
> > > a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted dur
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:15:50 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
> > a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
> > interrupt, but that's not likely.
>
> Seems pretty u
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 20:48, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
[snip]
> I'd guess you have some kind of hardware problem. It could also be
> a kernel problem where the saved address was corrupted during an
> interrupt, but that's not likely.
Seems pretty unlikely on a 4 year old Via Epia. Never had any
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:21:03 +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> Any ideas?
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
> 0009
83 ca 10 or $0x10,%edx
3b.byte 0x3b
8
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:30, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:03PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> Does the problem also happen in 2.6.19?
No idea. I ran 2.6.19 for a couple of weeks without problems. It took 2 days
to oops 2.6.19.1, so if
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:03PM +, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any ideas?
Does the problem also happen in 2.6.19?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at h
Hi,
Any ideas?
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
0009
printing eip:
c0156f60
*pde =
Oops: 0002 [#1]
Modules linked in: ipt_recent ipt_REJECT xt_tcpudp ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat
xt_state iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables prism54 yenta_socket
32 matches
Mail list logo
