login
Search
In the kerneloops.org stats, a new oops is rapidly climbing the charts.
The oops is a page fault in the ext3 "do_slit" function, and the first
report of it was with 2.6.26-rc6-git3.It happens with various applications; the backtraces are at:
http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=do_split
but are generally of this pattern:
*do_split
ext3_add_entry
ext3_rename
vfs_rename
... <various paths into vfs_rename> ...or
*do_split
? add_dirent_to_buf
ext3_add_entry
ext3_new_inode
ext3_add_nondir
ext3_create
vfs_create
....did we change anything in ext
--
Arjan, I was just looking at kerneloops last night, seeing the count for
this oops climb, and was wishing there were some way to annotate an oops
signature with more info. If I could have tagged this with the RH
bugzilla nr. it might have saved a lot of time for folks. Is this
feasible? Or is finding the oops text in bugzilla the only way?Thanks,
-Eric
--
there's a way to add a description to oopses (you might have seen some of these
descriptions already); however I've not implemented an account system yet so for
now it's only me who can add these.
--
Ok, that was my guess. I'll shoot you an email next time. :)
Thanks,
-Eric
--
This is a bug in rawhide in gcc miscompiling something...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451068
Dave.
--
If I understand it correctly that's a bug in upstream gcc 4.3.1
(but not in gcc 4.3.0)?Expect a lot more of this to pop up in the future.
cu
Adrian--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed--
it/s better to find if the gcc guys made a testcase for this bug (they normally do) and
test based on that.
--
The gcc Bugzilla contains a testcase.
But how do you plan to integrate it into a kernel build?
cu
Adrian--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed--
we already have several of these.
Just look at scripts/gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh for an example of such a beast.
--
Checking whether gcc supports some flags is easy.
But miscompilations are a different issue.
Especially since we also want to reject broken gcc versions for cross
compilations.cu
Adrian--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed--
have you actually looked at this script?
You didn't, since the script doesn't check if gcc supports some flag.
It checks very specifically for a code generation pattern...Please go look at the script first before responding.
--
I did look, but I missed the last pipe...
Do we know for sure this bug can only trigger on 32bit x86?
Or is there anything else I miss in gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh
that allows to use this approach to check for wrong code generation
caused by platform independent gcc bugs?cu
Adrian--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed--
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 03:42:34PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > In the kerneloops.org stats, a new oops is rapidly climbing the charts.
> > > The oops is a page fault in the ext3 "do_slit" function, and the first
> > > report of it was with 2.6.26-rc6-git3.
> > >
> > > It happens with various applications; the backtraces are at:
> > >
> > > http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=do_split
> >
> > This is a bug in rawhide in gcc miscompiling something...
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451068
>
> If I understand it correctly that's a bug in upstream gcc 4.3.1
> (but not in gcc 4.3.0)?
>
> Expect a lot more of this to pop up in the future.
> Should we #error for gcc 4.3.1?There are other nasty bugs in gcc-4.3.0. I actually
had to completely ban 4.3.0 in a user-space project
I'm involved with (Erlang) due to gcc PR36339 (fixed
in 4.3.1).What's the gcc bugzilla number for this new 4.3.1 bug?
--
#36533
cu
Adrian--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed--
Gaah. I should read all my email instead of wasting my time trying to
match up the code with what I can reproduce..Linus
--
unfortunately, kerneloops.org didn't pick up the link to this bug (due to the fact
that the oops in the bug was a jpeg....)... maybe one day if I'm really bored
I'll implement OCR into it ;)sorry about wasting your time
--
thanks for letting us know so fast!
I've marked this one in the database as a fedora gcc bug
--
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Tomasz Kłoczko | Is it time for remove (crap) ALSA from kernel tree ? |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Paweł Staszewski | iproute2 action/policer question |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
