From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1JuZe0-00057d-1L for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 16:56:44 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JuZdx-00055o-47 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 16:56:41 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JuZds-00052Q-Ub for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 16:56:38 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53407 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JuZdq-00051H-NH for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 16:56:34 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:53946) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JuZdn-0003yA-SB for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 16:56:32 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO relay.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.81]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 09 May 2008 16:56:29 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.21] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by relay.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A489619058 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 16:56:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <200805091213.27785.isaacmarcos100010@gmail.com> References: <200805080454.54578.isaacmarcos100010@gmail.com> <1210284927.9311.9.camel@dv> <20080509130200.GE3705@thorin> <200805091213.27785.isaacmarcos100010@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 16:56:28 -0400 Message-Id: <1210366588.14815.11.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 (2.22.1-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: grub-probe gets a segfault X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 20:56:42 -0000 On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 12:13 -0430, Isaac M. Marcos wrote: > > Neither could I :-( > > It does not happen in other two AMD64 machines here!! > Only on this one. That confirms my suspicion that the problem is not related to any x86_64 issues. I checked the bug history more carefully, and I think that rlocn->offset may be correct. 92672 is 0x16a00, which is a nice rounded number. If q is out of bounds, it probably means that mda_size was less than 0x16a00. Could you please print mda_size in the debugger? Also, pvck should display the metadata size. Please run this: pvck /dev/sda6 What's the metadata size? It is the same as mda_size should by gdb? -- Regards, Pavel Roskin