2009/8/16 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>: > > * Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thursday 13 August 2009, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Thursday 13 August 2009, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: >> >> >> 2009/8/13 Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@xxxxxx>: >> >> >> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> * Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Yes, this bug is still valid. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Ubuntu kernel team member Leann Ogasawara and I are slowly >> >> >> >>> bisecting our way through the changes that took place since 2.6.30 >> >> >> >>> to find the commit that introduced this regression. Please stay >> >> >> >>> tuned. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> hm, the only outright Geode related commit was: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> d6c585a: x86: geode: Mark mfgpt irq IRQF_TIMER to prevent resume failure >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the jpg at: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/28892781/00002.jpg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is very out of focus - but what i could decypher suggests a >> >> >> >> pagefault crash in the VFS code, in generic_delete_inode(). >> >> >> >> >> >> This one might be a bit better: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30267494/2.6.31-5.24.jpg >> > >> > Hmm. This looks like a sysfs oops to my untrained eye. >> >> The bisect I did with Leann Ogasawara has narrowed the kernel panic >> down to the following: >> >> commit f19d4a8fa6f9b6ccf54df0971c97ffcaa390b7b0 >> Author: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon Jun 8 19:50:45 2009 -0400 >> >> add caching of ACLs in struct inode >> >> No helpers, no conversions yet. >> >> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Weird. If the functions do what their name suggests, i.e. if > inode_init_always() is an always called constructor and if > destroy_inode() is an unconditional destructor then this patch > should have no functional effect on the VFS side. > > It increases the size of struct inode, so if you have some old > module (built to an older version of fs.h) still around it might > corrupt your inode data structure. > > Or the size change might trigger some dormant bug. It might move a > critical inode right into the path of a pre-existing (but not > visibly crash-triggering) data corruption. > > The possibilities on the 'weird bug' front are endless - the > crash/oops itself should be turned into text, posted here and > analyzed. If you mean something else than the large-size snapshot of the whole panic output that was linked earlier in this thread, I'd appreciate instructions on how to turn that crash into text. Martin-Éric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
