Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:11:58 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [0/3] 2.6.27.52 stable review |
| |
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 09:47:08AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote: > Hi Greg, > > I scraped the patches out of the messages and edited Makefile :) > > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:07:12 -0700, you wrote: > > >On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:36:34AM +1000, Grant Coady wrote: > >> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:47:04 -0700, you wrote: > >> > >> >NOTE! > >> > > >> >If I could get some people to please test this -rc release? It contains > >> >a few core changes that I couldn't validate myself as I don't seem to > >> >have a machine that will even boot the .27 kernel anymore after my move. > > Machine is running, but there's a lot of these in the dmesg: > > WARNING: at include/linux/security.h:1826 acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0() > Modules linked in: > Pid: 320, comm: khelper Not tainted 2.6.27.52-rc1a #57 > [<c011b54f>] warn_on_slowpath+0x5f/0x90 > [<c0145a53>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x93/0x420 > [<c01456bd>] buffered_rmqueue+0x11d/0x210 > [<c015e09a>] allocate_slab+0x4a/0xd0 > [<c015e149>] setup_object+0x29/0x30 > [<c015e204>] new_slab+0xb4/0x130 > [<c015e6ec>] __slab_alloc+0xac/0x120 > [<c01529e7>] acct_stack_growth+0xe7/0xf0 > [<c0152afa>] expand_stack+0x7a/0x90 > [<c014fc61>] do_anonymous_page+0x121/0x130 > [<c0150268>] handle_mm_fault+0x1b8/0x1e0 > [<c014e724>] get_user_pages+0xe4/0x270 > [<c0166ac9>] get_arg_page+0x49/0xc0 > [<c0166e5b>] copy_strings+0xdb/0x180 > [<c0166f29>] copy_strings_kernel+0x29/0x40 > [<c0167dae>] do_execve+0xde/0x1d0 > [<c0101f1f>] sys_execve+0x2f/0x60 > [<c0103036>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb > [<c011007b>] ioapic_register_intr+0x10b/0x110 > [<c0106bfc>] kernel_execve+0x1c/0x30 > [<c0128efc>] ____call_usermodehelper+0x5c/0xc0 > [<c0128ea0>] ____call_usermodehelper+0x0/0xc0 > [<c0103b1b>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x1c > ======================= > ---[ end trace 62e879f3daf4be6a ]---
I'm guessing that 2.6.27.51 didn't cause those warnings as well?
That's a warning that current->mm is null. I don't know enough about the mm subsystem to say if this is normal or not, and I don't at first glance, see how this patch could have caused this to happen.
Anyone else have an idea?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |