linux-kernel - Re: System crash after "No irq handler for vector" linux 2.6.19

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m1y7nu2axr.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2007 05:18:40 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	"Luigi Genoni" <luigi.genoni@...elli.com>
Cc:	<akpm@...l.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: System crash after "No irq handler for vector" linux 2.6.19

"Luigi Genoni" <luigi.genoni@...elli.com> writes:

> reproduced.
> it took more or less one hour to reproduce it.  I could reproduce it olny 
> running also irqbalance 0.55 and commenting out the sleep 1. The message in 
> syslog is the same and then, after a few seconds I think, KABOM! system crash 
> and reboot.
>
> I tested also a similar system that has 4 dual core CPU Opteron 2600MHZ. On 
> this system (linux sees 8 CPU, but it is the same kernel, same gcc, same 
> config, same glibc, same active services) I could not reproduce it even 
> running irqbalance 0.55 in almost 1 hour. Maybe I could reproduce it waiting 
> for more time, but my users need to do their work, so I could not have a 
> longer test window. So on 16 CPU I had the crash, on 8 CPU I had no crash. 
>
> I need to give back the system to the users, so if you need other tests, 
> please, tell me as soon.

Ok.  Since it seems to be the irq code I'm going to need to get a dump
of the state of the apics, basically the output print_IO_APIC from the time
this happens. 

I'm not really out of bed yet so no patch but a heads up.  Once I've finished
sleeping I'll look at putting a debugging patch together.

Getting a bootlog of the identical system that would not crash at 8 cpus
would be interesting.  In part this is because the number of apic modes
that are available for use are much fewer when we have 8 or more cpus,
so it would be interesting to see if it is actually using the same code
for interrupt delivery.

If you have a few minutes to try it, it would be interesting to know
if forcing the migration from the command line (as I was suggesting)
would reproduce this faster than irqbalance.

Hopefully I can think up things to fix this when I wake up.

The time zone difference is going to be a pain :(

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/