On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > OK, I haven't done the microcode update yet. I ran crashme overnight
> > with your newer patch and it crashed:
>
> Well, duh.
>
> That's because I forgot to do the "error_code & PF
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> OK, I haven't done the microcode update yet. I ran crashme overnight
> with your newer patch and it crashed:
Well, duh.
That's because I forgot to do the "error_code & PF_USER" =>
"user_mode_vm(regs)" thing in the most common case - the
"bad_area
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
I'll test this overnight on 2.6.23-rc6-git2 since that was failing.
I haven't been able to reproduce the fault on 2.6.21 after several
hours of testing.
I'll also test a microcode update to see if it helps.
Before you do the mic
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> I'll test this overnight on 2.6.23-rc6-git2 since that was failing.
>
> I haven't been able to reproduce the fault on 2.6.21 after several
> hours of testing.
>
> I'll also test a microcode update to see if it helps.
Before you do the microcode upd
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > I'm really starting to suspect some early EM64T bug, and I also suspect
> > that it's harmless but that we should just do the trivial patch to say "if
> > the register state
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:14:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > I'll apply this patch today, but I haven't done so yet (for the 2
> > bug reports below).
>
> Actually, it's probably better that you don't change your situation
> unnecessari
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I'm really starting to suspect some early EM64T bug, and I also suspect
> that it's harmless but that we should just do the trivial patch to say "if
> the register state is in user mode, we don't care if the CPU says it was a
> kernel access".
N
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> I'll apply this patch today, but I haven't done so yet (for the 2
> bug reports below).
Actually, it's probably better that you don't change your situation
unnecessarily, in case the bug goes away.
Since you are triggering the problem even *without
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Command: ./crashme +2000 666 1000 1:00:00 1
>
> Ok, that's close to what I was testing (one of the examples from the
> crashme docs).
>
> > > The original gjc crashme doesn't even
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:53:21 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:21:51PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > I run almost-daily kernel testing. I haven't seen 'crashme' cause a
> > kernel fault until today, and now I've seen it twice on 2.6.23-rc6-git2,
>
> Did the room tempera
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:21:51PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> I run almost-daily kernel testing. I haven't seen 'crashme' cause a
> kernel fault until today, and now I've seen it twice on 2.6.23-rc6-git2,
Did the room temperature change in the server room? ;) Those early
EM64T P4 core based are
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:47:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > So regardless of whether we want to trust "user_mode(regs)" more than
> > "error_code & PF_USER", it would definitely be very interesting if you can
> > give a good "this is
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Command: ./crashme +2000 666 1000 1:00:00 1
Ok, that's close to what I was testing (one of the examples from the
crashme docs).
> > The original gjc crashme doesn't even do a "mprotect(PROT_EXEC)" by default
> > (nor does it even compile on a modern u
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So regardless of whether we want to trust "user_mode(regs)" more than
"error_code & PF_USER", it would definitely be very interesting if you can
give a good "this is where it started happening".
Also, can you point to good cras
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So regardless of whether we want to trust "user_mode(regs)" more than
> "error_code & PF_USER", it would definitely be very interesting if you can
> give a good "this is where it started happening".
Also, can you point to good crashme sources, an
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Here's a really *stupid* patch (and untested too, btw) to see if it gets
> easier to debug when you don't oops, just print the register state
> instead.
Side note - while thinking about this, I'm wondering whether maybe that
"stupid" patch might
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Had another on recent last night (probably not helpful):
At least the original "crashme" would write its random number seeds to a
logfile each time (and I made it fsync it in some versions), which meant
that once a crash happene
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> Had another on recent last night (probably not helpful):
At least the original "crashme" would write its random number seeds to a
logfile each time (and I made it fsync it in some versions), which meant
that once a crash happened, you could re-prod
Andi Kleen wrote:
Andi, anything comes to mind?
No, unfortunately not. There weren't any changes to entry.S recently
that could corrupt the error code as far as I remember. Also cannot think of
something else.
A version where it started happening would be useful.
I'll begin testing older k
> Andi, anything comes to mind?
No, unfortunately not. There weren't any changes to entry.S recently
that could corrupt the error code as far as I remember. Also cannot think of
something else.
A version where it started happening would be useful.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:05:17 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >
> > > I run almost-daily kernel testing. I haven't seen 'crashme' cause a
> > > kernel fault until today, and now I've seen
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > I run almost-daily kernel testing. I haven't seen 'crashme' cause a
> > kernel fault until today, and now I've seen it twice on 2.6.23-rc6-git2,
> > x86_64. After the first fault, I
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> I run almost-daily kernel testing. I haven't seen 'crashme' cause a
> kernel fault until today, and now I've seen it twice on 2.6.23-rc6-git2,
> x86_64. After the first fault, I ran 'crashme' about 10 more times
> to get the second fault (usually for
I run almost-daily kernel testing. I haven't seen 'crashme' cause a
kernel fault until today, and now I've seen it twice on 2.6.23-rc6-git2,
x86_64. After the first fault, I ran 'crashme' about 10 more times
to get the second fault (usually for 10 minutes, one time for 30
minutes).
[This is gjc-
24 matches
Mail list logo
