Re: Regression in 2.6.25-rc3: s2ram segfaults before suspending

Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-04T23:16:50Z

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Klaus S. Madsen <ksm@hjernemadsen.org> wrote:
>
>
>> So while I'm fairly confident in that I bisected correctly, the number
>> of attempts I had to go through to get a reliable result, and the fact
>> that I cannot make the problem go away by reverting the current code
>> to something similar, counts quite a lot against me.
>>
>> However I'm 100% confident that the problem appears between
>> cf8fa920cb4271f17e0265c863d64bea1b31941a and
>> 925596a017bbd045ff711b778256f459e50a119, which is something like 16
>> commits. I have been at both points in the tree at least 2 times, and
>> confirmed that cf8fa920cb4271f17e0265c863d64bea1b31941a worked for me,
>> and 925596a017bbd045ff711b778256f459e50a119 didn't.
>>
>
> my guess would be that it's this commit that causes it:
>
> | commit 6c3866558213ff706d8331053386915371ad63ec
> | Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
> | Date: Wed Jan 30 13:32:55 2008 +0100
> |
> | x86: move all asm/pgtable constants into one place
>
>
>> But I'm a bit puzzled by the fact that I'm aparently the only one how
>> have encountered the problem? Maybe it's only a problem if one also
>> uses PAE? (Thats just a wild guess to explain why I'm the only one
>> seeing this).
>>
>
> PAE activates NX on 32-bit. So we probably had an NX regression that got
> fixed by the side-effects of one of the unifications. Does it start
> working if you disable NX via the noexec=off boot option?

What's the state of play here? Is upshot that this change fixed a bug
which broke s2ram, or caused a bug which broke s2ram?

J