| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080125142559.GJ16171@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:25:59 -0500 From: lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) To: Tobias Winter <tobias@...uxdingsda.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [resolved] kernel bug report 2.6.24-rc8 on core2quad q6600 with debian unstable amd64 On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 11:17:22AM +0100, Tobias Winter wrote: > Did so. After quite some time memtest found errors. Switching the > module in question resolved the issue. Thanks for the great feedback :) Often removing half the ram, running a kernel compile, see if it segfaults, then repeat with the other half of ram is much faster and more reliable than memtest. memtest just doesn't have the same random accesses while keeping the cpu underload as a kernel compile does. Personally I just don't bother with memtest anymore. The only thing it tells you is that you have errors or that you might have errors but it didn't find them. It never tells you that you do not have errors and it often does miss that you have errors since marginal memory is more likely to fail under cpu load it seems which memtest doesn't do. -- Len Sorensen -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists