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

Ingo Molnar
2008-03-04T12:36:42Z

* 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?

Ingo