From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Top 10 kernel oopses/warnings for the week of December 21st 2007 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:22:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20071221162242.GA29959@one.firstfloor.org> References: <476BA8AF.4060201@linux.intel.com> <476BCE15.6090902@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Marcel Holtmann , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" To: Arjan van de Ven Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:54827 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751204AbXLUQVv (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:21:51 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <476BCE15.6090902@linux.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > in this case this is really all the version information available ;( > it seems to be a patched kernel without patched EXTRAVERSION. > But in the future if I have more specific information (eg it's only 1 > kernel version) I'll mention it in more detail. > It gets unwieldy if there's 500 reports for an oops of course ;) Hmm would there be an automatic way to check out the file of the kernel version and then check if the BUG_ON/WARN_ON is on that line? Maybe it could be done using git. > > > > >Anyways there are a lot of third party modules who do strange > >things with c_p_a(), not always legal, so you might look up out for that > >pattern too. Perhaps report the out of tree modules loaded in the > >summary too? > > I already always will mention if the oops is tainted or not (that I track > specifically); I don't necessarily mean tainted, just out of tree modules in general. There are some GPL modules who do strange things too. Not saying that these oopses should be all ignored -- they might be legitimate kernel bugs that they just trigger -- just it should be visible somehow in the summary in case there is a pattern. Especially for c_p_a() i'm quite suspicious because it depends a lot on what the caller did. One way perhaps would be also to check if there is an out of tree module inside the backtrace. I suppose you could keep a list of in tree modules and do this automatically. Of course there could be false positives too with the standard inexact backtrace. -Andi