linux-kernel - Re: acpi_ex_system_memory_space

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]

Message-ID: <20090813083426.GB3283@localdomain.by>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:34:26 +0300
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Bob Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler oops

On (08/12/09 20:18), Len Brown wrote:
> > Kernel oopses on early boot stages (boots normally with boot_delay=10).
> 
> > rc5-git8
> 
> Please find which kernel this failure starts in.
> Start by testing 2.6.30.stable so we can tell   
> if this is a regression in the current RC.      
>
OK... I'll try to bisect. It'll take time. 
I consider 7 successfull boots to mark that kernel is ok (it may be wrong).

-git8
maxcpus=1
+ + + + + + +

acpi_serialize=1
+ -

boot_delay=1
+ + + + + + +

boot_delay=0
+ + -

vga=791
+ + + + + + +

 
> What is the difference between the two dmesg?
> they have the same cmdline, neither has boot_delay,
> and neither dmesg shows the oops.
>
boot params are the same. Both kernels booted successfully. There are no oopses in syslog (I guess 0.21 is
too early for logd to start).

The only difference (which I find suspicious) is around 0.21 second:
[    0.205668] ACPI Error (dswload-0790): [PCFG] Namespace lookup failure, AE_ALREADY_EXISTS
[    0.205899] ACPI Exception: AE_ALREADY_EXISTS, During name lookup/catalog 20090521 psloop-227
[    0.206124] ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.RBPE] (Node f7017678), AE_ALREADY_EXISTS
[    0.206417] ACPI: Marking method RBPE as Serialized because of AE_ALREADY_EXISTS error
[    0.206773] ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.PCI0.P0P4.XCRD._STA] (Node f7015648), AE_ALREADY_EXISTS
[    0.207070] ACPI: Marking method _STA as Serialized because of AE_ALREADY_EXISTS error
[    0.207326] ACPI Error (uteval-0256): Method execution failed [\_SB_.PCI0.P0P4.XCRD._STA] (Node f7015648), AE_ALREADY_EXISTS
[    0.213503] ACPI Error: Could not map memory at 0000000000000000, size 0 20090521 exregion-173
[    0.213734] ACPI Exception: AE_NO_MEMORY, Returned by Handler for [SystemMemory] 20090521 evregion-424
[    0.213963] ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.RBPE] (Node f7017678), AE_NO_MEMORY
[    0.214286] ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_GPE._L01] (Node f701d198), AE_NO_MEMORY
[    0.214616] ACPI Exception: AE_NO_MEMORY, while evaluating GPE method [_L01] 20090521 evgpe-568


> The fact that boot_delay=10 makes the problem go away
> suggests some sort of race condition.  
I think it is.

> Is 10 the smallest value of printk_time that works, or is it a random value?
> 
No. 1 is the smallest.

> Do you still see the oops with CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME=n?
> 
Yes.

> Do you still see the oops with maxcpus=1?
> 
No.

> Do you still see the oops with "acpi_serialize=1"?
> 
Yes.

	Sergey
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (316 bytes)