Re: boot failure, "DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199"
Date: Mon Aug 21 2006 - 12:44:05 EST
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:48:19 +0200 Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 20.08.06 03:31 >>>
> >As of 2.6.18-rc3, one of my test machines stopped booting. I'm not
> >seeing the whole OOPS (I could probably set up a serial console if
> >necessary), but it ends in something like:
> >DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199
> >Leftover inexact backtrace:
> > =======================
> > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000b034
> > printing eip:
> >*pde = 00000000
> >Recursive die() failure, output suppressed
> > <0>Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
> >Bisecting, it looks like this starts happening after c97d20a...,
> >"[PATCH] i386: Do backtrace fallback too", though it's a little tricky
> >since the compile is broken near there for a little while.
> >Kernel config appended; let me know if anything else would be useful.
> The 'stuck' unwinder issue at hand already has a fix, though planned to
> be merged for 2.6.19 only. The crash after switching to the legacy
> stack trace code is bad, though, but has little to do with the unwinder
> additions/changes. The way that code reads the stack is just
> inappropriate in contexts where things must be expected to be broken.
"merged for 2.6.19" meaning:
- in (before) 2.6.19, or
- after 2.6.19 is released
If "after," then it will likely need to be added to -stable also,
so it might as well go in "before" 2.6.19 is released.
> Finally, there is no visible correlation between the original problem (in
> or from trace_hardirqs_on) and the unwinder - once that problem is
> fixed, you're not likely to see the recursive die failure anymore either.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/