From: Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>
To: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel lockup, might be helpful log.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:35:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151214083524.GD26782@carfax.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pan$42e96$8159f644$233ed3aa$27e4f2e6@cox.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2300 bytes --]
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 06:51:41AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Birdsarenice posted on Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:55:19 +0000 as excerpted:
>
> > Meanwhile, I did get lucky: At one crash I happened to be logged in and
> > was able to hit dmesg seconds before it went completely. So what I have
> > here is information that looks like it'll help you track down a
> > rarely-encountered and hard-to-reproduce bug which can cause the system
> > to lock up completely in event of certain types of hard drive failure.
> > It might be nothing, but perhaps someone will find it of use - because
> > it'd be a tricky one to both reproduce and get a good error report if it
> > did occur.
> >
> > I see an 'invalid opcode' error in here, that's pretty unusual
>
> Disclaimer: I'm a list regular and (small-scale) sysadmin, not a dev,
> and most certainly not a btrfs dev. Take what I saw with that in mind,
> tho I've been active on-list for over a year and thus now have a
> reasonable level of practical sysadmin configuration and crisis recovery
> level btrfs experience.
>
> You could well be quite correct with the unusual crash log and its value,
> I'll leave that up to the devs to decide, but that "invalid opcode: 0000"
> bit is in fact not at all unusual on btrfs. Tho I can say it fooled me
> originally as well, because it certainly /looks/ both suspicious and in
> general unusual.
>
> Based on how a dev explained it to me, I believe btrfs actually
> deliberately uses opcode 0000 to trigger a semi-controlled crash in
> instances where code that "should never happen" actually gets executed
> for some reason, leaving the kernel is an unknown and thus not
> trustworthy enough to reliably write to storage devices and do a
> controlled shutdown. That's of course why the tracebacks are there, to
> help the devs figure out where it was and what triggered it, but the 0000
> opcode itself is actually quite frequently found in these tracebacks,
> because it's the method chosen to deliberately trigger them.
It's not just btrfs. Invalid opcode is the way that the kernel's
BUG and BUG_ON macro is implemented.
Hugo.
--
Hugo Mills | Great oxymorons of the world, no. 10:
hugo@... carfax.org.uk | Business Ethics
http://carfax.org.uk/ |
PGP: E2AB1DE4 |
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-14 8:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-13 22:55 Kernel lockup, might be helpful log Birdsarenice
2015-12-14 6:51 ` Duncan
2015-12-14 8:35 ` Hugo Mills [this message]
2015-12-14 12:38 ` Duncan
2015-12-14 7:36 ` Chris Murphy
2015-12-14 8:28 ` Birdsarenice
2015-12-14 12:06 ` Filipe Manana
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151214083524.GD26782@carfax.org.uk \
--to=hugo@carfax.org.uk \
--cc=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox