* 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related?
@ 2005-06-21 8:34 Pavel Machek
2005-06-21 9:07 ` Dipankar Sarma
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2005-06-21 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel list, Andrew Morton
Hi!
I got
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: kernel BUG at fs/open.c:935!
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: invalid operand: 0000 [#1]
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: Modules linked in: ipw2100
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: CPU: 0
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EIP: 0060:[page_referenced+39/160] Not tainted VLI
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EFLAGS: 00010286 (2.6.12-mm1)
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EIP is at fd_install+0x27/0x40
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: eax: f7268e00 ebx: 00000080 ecx: f61a9800 edx: f6106400
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: esi: f6106400 edi: f61a9800 ebp: 0000000c esp: f66d9f7c
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: Process kded (pid: 2056, threadinfo=f66d8000 task=f672ca80)
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: Stack: 00000080 c0165fd6 00000080 ffffffea 0000000c c0166300 00000000 f6106400
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: fffffff7 c01664b0 f6106400 0000000c 00000080 b6e84b7c f66d8000 c0102ea9
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: 0000000c 00000000 00000080 00000080 b6e84b7c bf9361f8 000000dd 0000007b
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: Call Trace:
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: [blkdev_get+38/160] dupfd+0x46/0x60
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: [lookup_bdev+48/144] do_fcntl+0x80/0x150
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: [.text.lock.block_dev+153/185] sys_fcntl64+0x80/0x90
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: [do_signal+57/288] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: Code: 00 00 00 00 53 89 c3 b8 00 e0 ff ff 21 e0 8b 00 8b 80 54 04 00 00 8b 48 04 8b 41 0c 8b 04 98 85 c0 75 08 8b 41 0c 89 14 98 5b c3 <0f> 0b a7 03 3c be 52 c0 eb ee eb 0d 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Jun 21 10:31:54 amd pam_limits[1559]: wrong limit value 'unlimited'
..while doing nothing particulary interesting. Its:
void fastcall fd_install(unsigned int fd, struct file * file)
{
struct files_struct *files = current->files;
struct fdtable *fdt;
spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
fdt = files_fdtable(files);
if (unlikely(fdt->fd[fd] != NULL))
BUG();
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], file);
spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
}
This bug. (Is there any particular reason why the code does not use
BUG_ON())?
Pavel
--
teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related? 2005-06-21 8:34 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related? Pavel Machek @ 2005-06-21 9:07 ` Dipankar Sarma 2005-06-21 9:15 ` Pavel Machek 2005-06-23 11:50 ` syrius.ml 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dipankar Sarma @ 2005-06-21 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: kernel list, Andrew Morton On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 10:34:24AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > I got > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------ > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: kernel BUG at fs/open.c:935! > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: invalid operand: 0000 [#1] > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: Modules linked in: ipw2100 > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: CPU: 0 > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EIP: 0060:[page_referenced+39/160] Not tainted VLI > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EFLAGS: 00010286 (2.6.12-mm1) > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EIP is at fd_install+0x27/0x40 > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: eax: f7268e00 ebx: 00000080 ecx: f61a9800 edx: f6106400 This has been reported by several other people. I am looking at it except that I can't reproduce it with the config files in one of those bug reports. Probably whatever userland triggers this bug isn't in my lab machine. Besides I am running really old userland anyway. I am going to find a box with newer userland and try. Some things are common - always with fcntl() or fcntl64() and with a daemon. Does your box come up at all ? If so, can you get me an strace on the process that triggers this ? If I can narrow it down to a small testcase, it would be a lot easier. Also, does switching off CONFIG_PREEMPT fix this problem ? Thanks Dipankar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related? 2005-06-21 9:07 ` Dipankar Sarma @ 2005-06-21 9:15 ` Pavel Machek 2005-06-23 11:50 ` syrius.ml 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2005-06-21 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dipankar Sarma; +Cc: kernel list, Andrew Morton Hi! > > I got > > > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: kernel BUG at fs/open.c:935! > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: invalid operand: 0000 [#1] > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: Modules linked in: ipw2100 > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: CPU: 0 > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EIP: 0060:[page_referenced+39/160] Not tainted VLI > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EFLAGS: 00010286 (2.6.12-mm1) > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: EIP is at fd_install+0x27/0x40 > > Jun 21 10:30:20 amd kernel: eax: f7268e00 ebx: 00000080 ecx: f61a9800 edx: f6106400 > > This has been reported by several other people. > I am looking at it except that I can't reproduce it with the config > files in one of those bug reports. Probably whatever userland triggers > this bug isn't in my lab machine. Besides I am running really old > userland anyway. I am going to find a box with newer userland > and try. > > Some things are common - always with fcntl() or fcntl64() and with > a daemon. Does your box come up at all ? If so, can you get me an > strace on the process that triggers this ? If I can narrow it > down to a small testcase, it would be a lot easier. Also, does > switching off CONFIG_PREEMPT fix this problem ? It is not reproducible for me. My machine came up, I worked for hour or so, then seen this one. It is still usable (I did not reboot yet). I do not see report which process is causing it :-(, original oops does not contain it AFAICS. Pavel -- teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related? 2005-06-21 9:07 ` Dipankar Sarma 2005-06-21 9:15 ` Pavel Machek @ 2005-06-23 11:50 ` syrius.ml 2005-06-23 19:02 ` Dipankar Sarma 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: syrius.ml @ 2005-06-23 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dipankar; +Cc: Pavel Machek, kernel list, Andrew Morton Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> writes: Hi > This has been reported by several other people. > I am looking at it except that I can't reproduce it with the config > files in one of those bug reports. Probably whatever userland triggers > this bug isn't in my lab machine. Besides I am running really old > userland anyway. I am going to find a box with newer userland > and try. > > Some things are common - always with fcntl() or fcntl64() and with > a daemon. Does your box come up at all ? If so, can you get me an > strace on the process that triggers this ? If I can narrow it > down to a small testcase, it would be a lot easier. Also, does > switching off CONFIG_PREEMPT fix this problem ? I haven't read about this thread. I hope u'll find a way to reproduce it. here debian/sid i386 (.config sent in an earlier message), it 100% reproducible when restarting bind9. (it also happens on its own on different occasion) end of a strace -f /etc/init.d/bind9 stop: 2290 rt_sigaction(SIGHUP, {0xb7d02570, ~[RTMIN], 0}, NULL, 8) = 0 2290 rt_sigsuspend([] <unfinished ...> 2291 select(4, [3], [], NULL, NULL <unfinished ...> 2292 gettimeofday({1119470144, 436008}, NULL) = 0 2292 rt_sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, [INT TERM], NULL, 8) = 0 2292 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 5 2292 close(5) = 0 2292 socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 5 2292 getsockname(5, {sa_family=AF_INET6, sin6_port=htons(0), inet_pton(AF_INET6, "::", &sin6_addr), s in6_flowinfo=0, sin6_scope_id=0}, [28]) = 0 2292 close(5) = 0 2292 futex(0xb7d1bb80, FUTEX_WAKE, 2147483647) = 0 2292 rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [INT TERM], NULL, 8) = 0 2292 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 5 2292 fcntl64(5, F_DUPFD, 20) = 20 2292 close(5) = 0 2292 fcntl64(20, F_GETFL) = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR) 2292 fcntl64(20, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) = 0 2292 connect(20, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(953), sin_addr=inet_addr("127.0.0.1")}, 16) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress) 2292 write(4, "\24\0\0\0\374\377\377\377", 8) = 8 2291 <... select resumed> ) = 1 (in [3]) 2292 futex(0x80534fc, FUTEX_WAIT, 0, NULL <unfinished ...> 2291 read(3, "\24\0\0\0\374\377\377\377", 8) = 8 2291 read(3, 0xb7b82848, 8) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) 2291 select(21, [3], [20], NULL, NULL) = 1 (out [20]) 2291 futex(0x80534fc, FUTEX_WAKE, 1) = 1 2292 <... futex resumed> ) = 0 2291 select(21, [3], [], NULL, NULL <unfinished ...> 2292 futex(0x80534b8, FUTEX_WAKE, 1) = 0 2292 gettimeofday({1119470144, 441408}, NULL) = 0 2292 getsockopt(20, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ERROR, [0], [4]) = 0 2292 gettimeofday({1119470144, 441603}, NULL) = 0 2292 recvmsg(20, 0xb73828b0, 0) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) 2292 write(4, "\24\0\0\0\375\377\377\377", 8) = 8 2291 <... select resumed> ) = 1 (in [3]) 2292 sendmsg(20, {msg_name(0)=NULL, msg_iov(1)=[{"\0\0\0\217\0\0\0\1\5_auth\2\0\0\0 \4hmd5\1\0\0\0\02 66y"..., 147}], msg_controllen=0, msg_flags=0}, 0 <unfinished ...> 2291 read(3, <unfinished ...> 2292 <... sendmsg resumed> ) = 147 2291 <... read resumed> "\24\0\0\0\375\377\377\377", 8) = 8 2292 futex(0x80534fc, FUTEX_WAIT, 1, NULL <unfinished ...> 2291 read(3, 0xb7b82848, 8) = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable) 2291 select(21, [3 20], [], NULL, NULL the rdnc freeze here. then i restart the daemon: end of a strace -f /etc/init.d/bind9 start 6541 rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {0xb7ca2a70, [], 0}, {SIG_IGN}, 8) = 0 6541 send(3, "<30>Jun 23 00:51:35 named[6540]:"..., 82, 0) = 82 6541 rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {SIG_IGN}, NULL, 8) = 0 6541 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP) = 10 6541 fcntl64(10, F_DUPFD, 20) = 32 6541 close(10) = 0 6541 fcntl64(32, F_GETFL) = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR) 6541 fcntl64(32, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) = 0 6541 setsockopt(32, SOL_SOCKET, SO_TIMESTAMP, [1], 4) = 0 6541 setsockopt(32, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 6541 bind(32, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(53), sin_addr=inet_addr("172.16.254.1")}, 16) = 0 6541 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 10 6541 fcntl64(10, F_DUPFD, 20 and the oops appears: ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/open.c:935! invalid operand: 0000 [#1] Modules linked in: ip6t_owner tun ip6t_length ip6t_MARK ip6t_IMQ ip6t_REJECT ip6t_LOG ip6t_limit ip6ta ble_mangle ip6table_filter ip6_tables cls_fw sch_sfq sch_hfsc imq ipt_CLASSIFY ipt_length ipt_multipor t ipt_helper ipt_tos ipt_MARK ipt_CONNMARK ipt_IMQ ipt_MASQUERADE ipt_TCPMSS ipt_REJECT ipt_LOG ipt_li mit iptable_mangle ipt_connmark ipt_state ip_nat_mms ip_nat_h323 ip_nat_irc ip_nat_ftp ip_conntrack_qu ake3 ip_conntrack_mms ip_conntrack_h323 ip_conntrack_irc ip_conntrack_ftp iptable_nat ip_conntrack ipt able_filter ip_tables nfsd exportfs pppoe pppox ppp_synctty ppp_async crc_ccitt genrtc nfs lockd sunrp c ppp_generic slhc i2c_piix4 i2c_isa lm75 lm78 i2c_sensor i2c_core e100 ipv6 dm_mod CPU: 0 EIP: 0060:[<c015822b>] Not tainted VLI EFLAGS: 00010286 (2.6.12-mm1) EIP is at fd_install+0x2b/0x40 eax: cbcc1ba0 ebx: 00000020 ecx: c8bf8a60 edx: cbcc11a0 esi: cbcc11a0 edi: c8bf8a60 ebp: c7887f58 esp: c7887f54 ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068 Process named (pid: 6541, threadinfo=c7886000 task=c7890040) Stack: 00000020 c7887f78 c016a842 c782dc80 cbcc11a0 00000014 ffffffea fffffff7 00000000 c7887f90 c016abcf cbcc11a0 00000014 fffffff7 cbcc11a0 c7887fb4 c016adc2 0000000a 00000000 00000014 cbcc11a0 0000000a 00000014 b7d0fb7c Call Trace: [<c0103def>] show_stack+0x7f/0xa0 [<c0103f97>] show_registers+0x157/0x1c0 [<c0104188>] die+0xc8/0x140 [<c01042b5>] do_trap+0xb5/0xc0 [<c01045fc>] do_invalid_op+0xbc/0xd0 [<c0103a33>] error_code+0x4f/0x54 [<c016a842>] dupfd+0x52/0x70 [<c016abcf>] do_fcntl+0x7f/0x190 [<c016adc2>] sys_fcntl64+0x82/0xa0 [<c0102f89>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb Code: 55 89 e5 53 89 c3 b8 00 e0 ff ff 21 e0 8b 00 8b 80 54 04 00 00 8b 48 04 8b 41 0c 8b 04 98 85 c0 75 09 8b 41 0c 89 14 98 5b 5d c3 <0f> 0b a7 03 dc 24 30 c0 eb ed 8d 74 26 00 8d bc 27 00 00 00 00 -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related? 2005-06-23 11:50 ` syrius.ml @ 2005-06-23 19:02 ` Dipankar Sarma 2005-06-23 21:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2005-06-23 23:05 ` syrius.ml 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dipankar Sarma @ 2005-06-23 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: syrius.ml; +Cc: Pavel Machek, kernel list, Andrew Morton, bero, rjw, sharyath On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:50:11PM +0200, syrius.ml@no-log.org wrote: > Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> writes: > > > Some things are common - always with fcntl() or fcntl64() and with > > a daemon. Does your box come up at all ? If so, can you get me an > > strace on the process that triggers this ? If I can narrow it > > down to a small testcase, it would be a lot easier. Also, does > > switching off CONFIG_PREEMPT fix this problem ? > > I haven't read about this thread. I hope u'll find a way to reproduce > it. here debian/sid i386 (.config sent in an earlier message), it 100% > reproducible when restarting bind9. (it also happens on its own on > different occasion) > > > then i restart the daemon: > > end of a strace -f /etc/init.d/bind9 start > 6541 rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {0xb7ca2a70, [], 0}, {SIG_IGN}, 8) = 0 > 6541 send(3, "<30>Jun 23 00:51:35 named[6540]:"..., 82, 0) = 82 > 6541 rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {SIG_IGN}, NULL, 8) = 0 > 6541 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP) = 10 > 6541 fcntl64(10, F_DUPFD, 20) = 32 > 6541 close(10) = 0 > 6541 fcntl64(32, F_GETFL) = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR) > 6541 fcntl64(32, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) = 0 > 6541 setsockopt(32, SOL_SOCKET, SO_TIMESTAMP, [1], 4) = 0 > 6541 setsockopt(32, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 > 6541 bind(32, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(53), > sin_addr=inet_addr("172.16.254.1")}, 16) = 0 > 6541 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 10 > 6541 fcntl64(10, F_DUPFD, 20 Aha, this has been extremely helpful. Could you all please try the following (untested) patch ? This should fix the problem, or atleast one problem that I can see. Thanks Dipankar locate_fd() may expand fdtable, so the fdtable pointer must be reloaded after locate_fd(). Signed-of-by: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> --- fs/fcntl.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -puN fs/fcntl.c~fix-dupfd-reacquire-fdt fs/fcntl.c --- linux-2.6.12-mm1-fix/fs/fcntl.c~fix-dupfd-reacquire-fdt 2005-06-25 14:56:58.000000000 +0530 +++ linux-2.6.12-mm1-fix-dipankar/fs/fcntl.c 2005-06-25 14:58:26.000000000 +0530 @@ -118,9 +118,10 @@ static int dupfd(struct file *file, unsi int fd; spin_lock(&files->file_lock); - fdt = files_fdtable(files); fd = locate_fd(files, file, start); if (fd >= 0) { + /* locate_fd() may have expanded fdtable, load the ptr */ + fdt = files_fdtable(files); FD_SET(fd, fdt->open_fds); FD_CLR(fd, fdt->close_on_exec); spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); _ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related? 2005-06-23 19:02 ` Dipankar Sarma @ 2005-06-23 21:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2005-06-23 23:05 ` syrius.ml 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2005-06-23 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dipankar Cc: syrius.ml, Pavel Machek, kernel list, Andrew Morton, bero, sharyath Hi, On Thursday, 23 of June 2005 21:02, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:50:11PM +0200, syrius.ml@no-log.org wrote: > > Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> writes: > > > > > Some things are common - always with fcntl() or fcntl64() and with > > > a daemon. Does your box come up at all ? If so, can you get me an > > > strace on the process that triggers this ? If I can narrow it > > > down to a small testcase, it would be a lot easier. Also, does > > > switching off CONFIG_PREEMPT fix this problem ? > > > > I haven't read about this thread. I hope u'll find a way to reproduce > > it. here debian/sid i386 (.config sent in an earlier message), it 100% > > reproducible when restarting bind9. (it also happens on its own on > > different occasion) > > > > > > then i restart the daemon: > > > > end of a strace -f /etc/init.d/bind9 start > > 6541 rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {0xb7ca2a70, [], 0}, {SIG_IGN}, 8) = 0 > > 6541 send(3, "<30>Jun 23 00:51:35 named[6540]:"..., 82, 0) = 82 > > 6541 rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {SIG_IGN}, NULL, 8) = 0 > > 6541 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP) = 10 > > 6541 fcntl64(10, F_DUPFD, 20) = 32 > > 6541 close(10) = 0 > > 6541 fcntl64(32, F_GETFL) = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR) > > 6541 fcntl64(32, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) = 0 > > 6541 setsockopt(32, SOL_SOCKET, SO_TIMESTAMP, [1], 4) = 0 > > 6541 setsockopt(32, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0 > > 6541 bind(32, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(53), > > sin_addr=inet_addr("172.16.254.1")}, 16) = 0 > > 6541 socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 10 > > 6541 fcntl64(10, F_DUPFD, 20 > > Aha, this has been extremely helpful. Could you all please try the > following (untested) patch ? This should fix the problem, or > atleast one problem that I can see. On my system the patch apparently fixes the problem. Excellent job! :-) Thanks, Rafael -- - Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? - That depends a good deal on where you want to get to. -- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related? 2005-06-23 19:02 ` Dipankar Sarma 2005-06-23 21:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2005-06-23 23:05 ` syrius.ml 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: syrius.ml @ 2005-06-23 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dipankar; +Cc: Pavel Machek, kernel list, Andrew Morton, bero, rjw, sharyath Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> writes: > [...] > Aha, this has been extremely helpful. Could you all please try the > following (untested) patch ? This should fix the problem, or > atleast one problem that I can see. glad that it helped. and actually it does fix the problem i was having. Thank you ! -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-06-23 23:11 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-06-21 8:34 2.6.12-mm1: BUG() in fd_install, RCU related? Pavel Machek 2005-06-21 9:07 ` Dipankar Sarma 2005-06-21 9:15 ` Pavel Machek 2005-06-23 11:50 ` syrius.ml 2005-06-23 19:02 ` Dipankar Sarma 2005-06-23 21:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2005-06-23 23:05 ` syrius.ml
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox