linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.{30,31} x86_64 ahci problem

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: <4AD2DFA4.9000602@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:49:56 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
CC:	Alexander Huemer <alexander.huemer@....ac.at>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.{30,31} x86_64 ahci problem - irq 23: nobody cared

Hello,

Frans Pop wrote:
>> so in my opinion reverting commit [1] with commit [2] missed the point.
>>
>> [1] a5bfc4714b3f01365aef89a92673f2ceb1ccf246
>> [2] 31b239ad1ba7225435e13f5afc47e48eb674c0cc
> 
> The most likely explanation is that your earlier test from which you
> concluded that the revert did fix the problem was incorrect. It seems
> unlikely that some other stable commit interferes here.

Hmm...

> So basically we're back where we started.
> 
>>     [ 1018.059729] irq 23: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
>>     [ 1018.059734] Pid: 8656, comm: sh Tainted: G        W    2.6.31-gentoo-r2-blackbit #1
>>     [ 1018.059736] Call Trace:
>>     [ 1018.059738]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff81066ecf>] ? __report_bad_irq+0x30/0x7d
>>     [ 1018.059748]  [<ffffffff81067023>] ? note_interrupt+0x107/0x170
>>     [ 1018.059751]  [<ffffffff81067610>] ? handle_fasteoi_irq+0x8a/0xaa
>>     [ 1018.059755]  [<ffffffff8100d1cf>] ? handle_irq+0x17/0x1d
>>     [ 1018.059757]  [<ffffffff8100c84b>] ? do_IRQ+0x54/0xb2
>>     [ 1018.059761]  [<ffffffff8100b6d3>] ? ret_from_intr+0x0/0xa
>>     [ 1018.059762]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff815c7d2c>] ? do_page_fault+0xed/0x2ef
>>     [ 1018.059769]  [<ffffffff815c7f12>] ? do_page_fault+0x2d3/0x2ef
>>     [ 1018.059773]  [<ffffffff812dd5ed>] ? __put_user_4+0x1d/0x30
>>     [ 1018.059776]  [<ffffffff815c5fdf>] ? page_fault+0x1f/0x30
>>     [ 1018.059777] handlers:
>>     [ 1018.059778] [<ffffffff813d2d8c>] (ahci_interrupt+0x0/0x426) 
>>     [ 1018.059783] Disabling IRQ #23
> 
> How reproducible is the error for you? Do you see it every time or not?
> If it is reliably reproducible, can you think of any explanation why your
> earlier test was a success while we now see that the revert does not help?
> 
> Does the error *only* occur during gcc compilation, or was that just the
> simplest way to reproduce it? Does it always occur at the same point during
> the compilation or does it vary?
> Can you create a test case that does not require doing the whole
> compilation, but only executes the step that triggers the error?
> 
> If you can find a reliable and fairly quick way to reproduce the error, I
> would suggest doing a bisection.
> 
> Jeff, Tejun: do you have any ideas what could cause this issue to suddenly
> appear or how to debug/instrument it?

Alexander, can you please attach full boot log and the output of
"lspci -nn"?  Also, how reproducible is the problem?  You already
answered to Frans' question but can you be more specific?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/