Oops - 2.4.17rc1 (with iptables 2.4.6)

Oops - 2.4.17rc1 (with iptables 2.4.6)

[Whit Blauvelt]

Turns out it didn't leave a trace in the logs, but had a hard Oops less than
an hour into running this on a box that's been rock-solid stable for a
couple years, most recently running 2.2.19. 

Sorry I didn't hand copy the Oops screen - no time for that. Back to 2.2.19.
So this isn't so useful a report, except maybe to caution going beyond the
"rc" stage too soon on this one, just in case.

The iptables patch applied to it was just with the standard features,
nothing experimental.

Whit

RE: Oops - 2.4.17rc1 (with iptables 2.4.6)

[Edward Killips]

I just upgraded to rc1 and get the following oops in with the netfilter
code.

ksymoops 2.4.3 on i586 2.4.17-rc1.  Options used
     -V (default)
     -k /proc/ksyms (default)
     -l /proc/modules (default)
     -o /lib/modules/2.4.17-rc1/ (default)
     -m /boot/System.map (specified)

c0216e84
*pde = 00000000
Oops:  0000
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:[c0216e84>] Not tainted
EFLAGS: 00010202
eax: 00000000 ebx: 5a5a5a5a ecx: 00000000 eds: 00000010
esi: 00000010 edi: d43de084 ebp: 00000000 esp: c02bfe58
ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Stack: 00000000 00000000 d43de084 00000000 d6968814 d43de084 00000000
c02193ca
       d43de084 5a5a5a5a 5a5a5a5a 00000050 00000000 00000000 c02193a0
c020f696
       c032f240 00000000 00000000 00000000 c02193a0 c020f6c8 d43de084
00000000
Call Trace: [<c02193a0>] [<d88919e9>] [<c020f696>] [<c01293a0>] [<c020f6c8>]
[<c01291f9>] [<c02193a0>] [<d88919e9>] [<c020a1d8>] [<c011902b>]
[<co118f40>]
[<c0118d6c>] [<c0108681>] [<c01053c0>] [<c01053c0>] [<c01053e3>]
[<c010544e>]
[<c0105000>]
Code: 8b 78 3c 89 d8 89 da 25 f0 f0 f0 f0 81 e2 0f 0f 0f 0f c1 e8
Using defaults from ksymoops -t elf32-i386 -a i386

Trace; c02193a0 <ip_rcv_finish+0/1e0>
Trace; d88919e8 <[lt_modem]UART_CopyDteTxData+44/dc>
Trace; c020f696 <nf_hook_slow+b6/140>
Trace; c01293a0 <kmem_cache_destroy+20/e0>
Trace; c020f6c8 <nf_hook_slow+e8/140>
Trace; c01291f8 <kmem_cache_create+308/3b0>
Trace; c02193a0 <ip_rcv_finish+0/1e0>
Trace; d88919e8 <[lt_modem]UART_CopyDteTxData+44/dc>
Trace; c020a1d8 <net_rx_action+138/210>
Trace; c011902a <bh_action+1a/40>
Trace; c0118d6c <do_softirq+4c/90>
Trace; c0108680 <do_IRQ+90/a0>
Trace; c01053c0 <default_idle+0/30>
Trace; c01053c0 <default_idle+0/30>
Trace; c01053e2 <default_idle+22/30>
Trace; c010544e <cpu_idle+3e/60>
Trace; c0105000 <_stext+0/0>
Code;  00000000 Before first symbol
00000000 <_EIP>:
Code;  00000000 Before first symbol
   0:   8b 78 3c                  mov    0x3c(%eax),%edi
Code;  00000002 Before first symbol
   3:   89 d8                     mov    %ebx,%eax
Code;  00000004 Before first symbol
   5:   89 da                     mov    %ebx,%edx
Code;  00000006 Before first symbol
   7:   25 f0 f0 f0 f0            and    $0xf0f0f0f0,%eax
Code;  0000000c Before first symbol
   c:   81 e2 0f 0f 0f 0f         and    $0xf0f0f0f,%edx
Code;  00000012 Before first symbol
  12:   c1 e8 00                  shr    $0x0,%eax

<0>Kernel panic: Aiee, Killing interrupt handler!

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 12:57 AM
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Oops - 2.4.17rc1 (with iptables 2.4.6)


Turns out it didn't leave a trace in the logs, but had a hard Oops less than
an hour into running this on a box that's been rock-solid stable for a
couple years, most recently running 2.2.19.

Sorry I didn't hand copy the Oops screen - no time for that. Back to 2.2.19.
So this isn't so useful a report, except maybe to caution going beyond the
"rc" stage too soon on this one, just in case.

The iptables patch applied to it was just with the standard features,
nothing experimental.

Whit
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Oops - 2.4.17rc1

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 01:15:30AM -0500, safemode wrote:
> iptables comes with 2.4.x, why are you patching it against it?

Well, meant to type iptables 1.2.4 - well actually you need to run iptables'
install routine to properly make the utilities - it doesn't patch anything
that isn't already in the kernel, so if the kernel's up to 1.2.4, the oops
came from some other problem.

Subsequently I've gone to using some of the experimental patches against
2.4.16, which does require patching. No problem so far with that kernel.
That oops was against the scock 2.4.17rc1 version.

Whit
> 
> On Sat, 2001-12-15 at 00:56, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> > Turns out it didn't leave a trace in the logs, but had a hard Oops less than
> > an hour into running this on a box that's been rock-solid stable for a
> > couple years, most recently running 2.2.19. 
> > 
> > Sorry I didn't hand copy the Oops screen - no time for that. Back to 2.2.19.
> > So this isn't so useful a report, except maybe to caution going beyond the
> > "rc" stage too soon on this one, just in case.
> > 
> > The iptables patch applied to it was just with the standard features,
> > nothing experimental.
> > 
> > Whit
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > 

Re: Oops - 2.4.17rc1

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 10:37:43PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:

> iptables is already in the kernel, so an iptables
> patch does sound experimental, e.g. you are
> adding something new -
> 
> BTW 2.4.6 doesn't sound right for an iptables
> version -

Right! Got to stop typing late at night. Presumably iptables 1.2.4 make does
not add anything new to the kernel, but just builds the utilities agains it?
In anycase, nothing experimental was specified. Or is the kernel including
previous iptables code?

Whit