lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference (drm_getunique)
    Date
    Hello,

    Johannes Weiner wrote:

    > Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@yahoo.com> writes:
    >
    >> [ 4305.767503] Pid: 8373, comm: unix2_chkpwd Tainted: G W
    >> [ (2.6.26-rc4-next-20080604skw #177)
    >
    > There was a warning before that oops already, could you post that too?

    The warning is:
    [ 42.949862] ------------[ cut here ]------------
    [ 42.949873] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2680 check_flags+0x8a/0x12d()
    [ 42.949880] Modules linked in:
    [ 42.949887] Pid: 5, comm: watchdog/0 Not tainted 2.6.26-rc4-next-20080604skw #178
    [ 42.949898] [<c01226f0>] warn_on_slowpath+0x41/0x6a
    [ 42.949917] [<c013c584>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd
    [ 42.949935] [<c013e3b4>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
    [ 42.951740] [<c013e36d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xe8/0x124
    [ 42.951759] [<c013e3b4>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
    [ 42.951778] [<c011c8f7>] ? hrtick_set+0xce/0xd6
    [ 42.951799] [<c013c1d2>] check_flags+0x8a/0x12d
    [ 42.951816] [<c013f2f8>] lock_acquire+0x3b/0x89
    [ 42.951830] [<c0370c0a>] _read_lock+0x1c/0x49
    [ 42.951848] [<c01531fe>] ? watchdog+0x97/0x1a9
    [ 42.951867] [<c0153167>] ? watchdog+0x0/0x1a9
    [ 42.951883] [<c01531fe>] watchdog+0x97/0x1a9
    [ 42.951900] [<c0153167>] ? watchdog+0x0/0x1a9
    [ 42.951916] [<c01329a0>] kthread+0x3b/0x63
    [ 42.951933] [<c0132965>] ? kthread+0x0/0x63
    [ 42.951952] [<c01038ab>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
    [ 42.951969] =======================
    [ 42.951976] ---[ end trace 199a1fe68fc13dfd ]---
    [ 42.951983] possible reason: unannotated irqs-on.
    [ 42.951991] irq event stamp: 18
    [ 42.951998] hardirqs last enabled at (17): [<c013e3b4>] trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
    [ 42.952018] hardirqs last disabled at (18): [<c013c584>] trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd
    [ 42.952043] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<c0120e1b>] copy_process+0x2dd/0xf9a
    [ 42.952062] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<00000000>] 0x0

    I've mentioned it before ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/29/502 ) and even
    bisected it ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/4/313 ). I guess the problem
    is that everyone is busy and it's hard to tell if people didn't see it,
    if it's just not important. Perhaps there needs to be a rule that
    lockdep warnings always go into bugzilla (or that if you are willing
    to chase an issue for a minimum of six months it should be bugzillad...).

    Thanks for your work looking at the real bug though!

    --
    Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-05 09:11    [W:0.038 / U:0.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site