lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: boot failure, "DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199"
    On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:48:19 +0200 Jan Beulich wrote:

    > >>> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> 20.08.06 03:31 >>>
    > >As of 2.6.18-rc3, one of my test machines stopped booting. I'm not
    > >seeing the whole OOPS (I could probably set up a serial console if
    > >necessary), but it ends in something like:
    > >
    > >trace_hardirqs_on
    > >idesci_pc_intr
    > >ide_intr
    > >handle_IRQ_event
    > >__do_IRQ
    > >do_IRQ
    > >common_interrupt
    > >default_idle
    > >apm_cpu_idle
    > >cpu_idle
    > >rest_init
    > >start_kernel
    > >0xc0100199
    > >DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199
    > >Leftover inexact backtrace:
    > > =======================
    > > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000b034
    > > printing eip:
    > >c0103712
    > >*pde = 00000000
    > >Recursive die() failure, output suppressed
    > > <0>Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
    > >
    > >Bisecting, it looks like this starts happening after c97d20a...,
    > >"[PATCH] i386: Do backtrace fallback too", though it's a little tricky
    > >since the compile is broken near there for a little while.
    > >
    > >Kernel config appended; let me know if anything else would be useful.
    >
    > The 'stuck' unwinder issue at hand already has a fix, though planned to
    > be merged for 2.6.19 only. The crash after switching to the legacy
    > stack trace code is bad, though, but has little to do with the unwinder
    > additions/changes. The way that code reads the stack is just
    > inappropriate in contexts where things must be expected to be broken.

    "merged for 2.6.19" meaning:
    - in (before) 2.6.19, or
    - after 2.6.19 is released

    If "after," then it will likely need to be added to -stable also,
    so it might as well go in "before" 2.6.19 is released.

    > Finally, there is no visible correlation between the original problem (in
    > or from trace_hardirqs_on) and the unwinder - once that problem is
    > fixed, you're not likely to see the recursive die failure anymore either.

    ---
    ~Randy
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-21 18:49    [W:0.025 / U:30.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site