linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 - kernel bug while bootup at __alloc_pages_internal () on x86

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

Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 23:51:36 +0530
From:	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 - kernel bug while bootup at __alloc_pages_internal
 () on x86_64

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:54:46 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> The 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 kernel panic's while bootup on the x86_64 machine.
>>
>>
>> BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 0000000000001e08
>> IP: [<ffffffff8026ac60>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x80/0x470
>> PGD 0 
>> Oops: 0000 [1] SMP 
>> last sysfs file: 
>> CPU 31 
>> Modules linked in:
>> Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.26-rc2-mm1-autotest #1
>> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8026ac60>]  [<ffffffff8026ac60>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x80/0x470
>> RSP: 0018:ffff810bf9dbdbc0  EFLAGS: 00010202
>> RAX: 0000000000000002 RBX: ffff810bef4786c0 RCX: 0000000000000001
>> RDX: 0000000000001e00 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000001020
>> RBP: ffff810bf9dbb6d0 R08: 0000000000001020 R09: 0000000000000000
>> R10: 0000000000000008 R11: ffffffff8046d130 R12: 0000000000001020
>> R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 0000000000001e00 R15: ffff810bf8d29878
>> FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff810bf916dec0(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>> CS:  0010 DS: 0018 ES: 0018 CR0: 000000008005003b
>> CR2: 0000000000001e08 CR3: 0000000000201000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>> Process swapper (pid: 1, threadinfo ffff810bf9dbc000, task ffff810bf9dbb6d0)
>> Stack:  0002102000000000 0000000000000002 0000000000000000 0000000200000000
>>  0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
>>  0000000000000000 ffff810bef4786c0 0000000000001020 ffffffffffffffff
>> Call Trace:
>>  [<ffffffff802112e9>] dma_alloc_coherent+0xa9/0x280
>>  [<ffffffff804e8c9e>] tg3_init_one+0xa3e/0x15e0
>>  [<ffffffff8028d0e4>] alternate_node_alloc+0x84/0xd0
>>  [<ffffffff802286fc>] task_rq_lock+0x4c/0x90
>>  [<ffffffff8022de62>] set_cpus_allowed_ptr+0x72/0xf0
>>  [<ffffffff802e12fb>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x1b/0x210
>>  [<ffffffff802e0f99>] sysfs_find_dirent+0x29/0x40
>>  [<ffffffff8036cc34>] pci_device_probe+0xe4/0x130
>>  [<ffffffff803bfc26>] driver_probe_device+0x96/0x1a0
>>  [<ffffffff803bfdb9>] __driver_attach+0x89/0x90
>>  [<ffffffff803bfd30>] __driver_attach+0x0/0x90
>>  [<ffffffff803bf29d>] bus_for_each_dev+0x4d/0x80
>>  [<ffffffff8028d676>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x116/0x130
>>  [<ffffffff803bf78e>] bus_add_driver+0xae/0x220
>>  [<ffffffff803c0046>] driver_register+0x56/0x130
>>  [<ffffffff8036cee8>] __pci_register_driver+0x68/0xb0
>>  [<ffffffff80708a29>] kernel_init+0x139/0x390
>>  [<ffffffff8020c358>] child_rip+0xa/0x12
>>  [<ffffffff807088f0>] kernel_init+0x0/0x390
>>  [<ffffffff8020c34e>] child_rip+0x0/0x12
>>
>>
>> Code: c9 00 00 02 00 25 00 08 00 00 89 4c 24 04 89 04 24 44 89 e9 b8 01 00 00 00 d3 e0 48 98 48 89 44 24 08 65 48 8b 2c 25 00 00 00 00 <49> 83 7e 08 00 0f 84 9a 03 00 00 44 8b 44 24 1c 48 8b 74 24 10 
>> RIP  [<ffffffff8026ac60>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x80/0x470
>>  RSP <ffff810bf9dbdbc0>
>> CR2: 0000000000001e08
>> ---[ end trace 111493bba2b1f3db ]---
> 
> grumble.  why.  There are lots of patches already which changed the
> page allocator.
> 
> config, please?
I have attached the .config file.

> Is it NUMA?
It is a NUMA box, with 4 nodes.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kamalesh Babulal,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM, ISTL.

View attachment "akpm-config" of type "text/plain" (34871 bytes)