From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Top kernel oopses/warnings for the week of May 16th 2008 Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 23:53:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20080520035348.GA32472@codemonkey.org.uk> References: <482DB93B.2080100@linux.intel.com> <20080516180426.GA3284@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , NetDev , Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik To: Adrian Bunk Return-path: Received: from testure.choralone.org ([194.9.77.134]:49929 "EHLO testure.choralone.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755609AbYETDw4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2008 23:52:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080516180426.GA3284@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:04:26PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:41:31AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >... > > Bug of the week > > --------------- > > Not in the top 10 (but barely not so), but upcoming fast is a bug that has a very > > distinct pattern. > > The backtraces are at http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek.php?search=fput > > > > The pattern is that the kernel gets an invalid pointer passed to fput(), > > coming down from a select() system call done by the "wpa_supplicant" program. > > The fact that it is ONLY wpa_supplicant implicates the wireless/network stack. > > Another observation is that this only happens with 64 bit kernels, even though > > a large portion of the users uses 32 bit kernels. This implies that this is a 64-bit > > type of bug. It appears that the top 32 bit of the pointers is getting corrupted > > (the bottom part at least looks valid). > >... > > Unless I misunderstand your webinterface another pattern is a "fc9" in > the version string. Unsurprising really given we just did a release, and not many other distros are enabling kerneloops by default yet. > My first guess would be that it might be a problem in some code that is > only in Fedora kernels? Very likely, though it's worth noting that all the wireless patches we have in f9 are from wireless.git, so they're valid 2.6.26-rc bugs Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk