Gabriel C wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>> Hi Gabriel,
>>
>> On 7/16/07, Gabriel C <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ( http://194.231.229.228/Oops.txt )
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> I cannot reproduce this on plain 2.6.22 so I've started to bisect the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>>
>> Could you reproduce this oops at will at the "bad" points? [ Note that
>> git-bisect isn't quite applicable to bugs that are not 100% reproducible.
>> The ones that passed as "good" may have passed only because the
>> bug didn't get triggered on that particular test. Also, a perfectly good
>> commit could get unnecessarily marked "bad" because the bug
>> happened to get triggered for it ... so it's not quite trust-worthy for
>> your case. ]
>>
>>
>
> Yes all marked 'bad' ponts have the Oops , at least here.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Here the bisect result:
>>>
>>> 3007e997de91ec59af39a3f9c91595b31ae6e08b is first bad commit
>>> commit 3007e997de91ec59af39a3f9c91595b31ae6e08b
>>> Author: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Thu Jun 14 04:27:23 2007 +0900
>>>
>>> sysfs: use sysfs_mutex to protect the sysfs_dirent tree
>>>
>>> As kobj sysfs dentries and inodes are gonna be made reclaimable,
>>> i_mutex can't be used to protect sysfs_dirent tree. Use sysfs_mutex
>>> globally instead. As the whole tree is protected with sysfs_mutex,
>>> there is no reason to keep sysfs_rename_sem. Drop it.
>>>
>>> While at it, add docbook comments to functions which require
>>> sysfs_mutex locking.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> :040000 040000 9deba7887752bc343cc4f5dea2dac70e895ea8b6
>>> 75340b6e18c1ada500bb1a2b99ee88fd93ebae8c M fs
>>>
>>>
>> Hmm, I don't see why this one could introduce an oops in SLUB,
>> but it's doing some locking-related stuff, and if it didn't get it right,
>> the resulting races /could/ lead to some oops. But ... a recently
>> posted patch (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/16/204) from Akinobu
>> Mita does point to an oops that was introduced by commit
>> 0c096b507f15397da890051ee73de4266d3941fb that belongs to the
>> same patchset -- kmem_cache_free(NULL) is illegal and so will oops.
>> A curious coincidence is that you do see sysfs_new_dirent() in the
>> stack trace there, but the oops there is in kmem_cache_free(), not
>> kmem_cache_zalloc() as your dmesg output indicated.
>>
>> Try that patch anyway, but I don't think that'll solve your problem --
>> if it was, you would've been seeing "unable to handle kernel NULL
>> pointer dereference" but what you've been posting is "unable to
>> handle kernel paging request at virtual address <non_null_ptr>" ...
>>
>>
>
> I will try this patch and look whatever it helps.
>
With that patch my box is killed right after fixed modules in modprobed
without any trace :|
I try now without again
Gabriel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
