Bug#363235: linux-image-2.6-k7: rsync OOPSes with "unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 40000000"
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:40:05PM +0100, David Ayers wrote:
> Linux demo 2.6.18-5-k7 #1 SMP Sat Dec 1 23:28:28 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
>
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 40000000
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: printing eip:
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: c0141d20
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: *pde = 00000000
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: Oops: 0000 [#1]
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: SMP
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: Modules linked in: ip6table_filter ip6_tables ipv6 tun iptable_raw xt_policy xt_multiport ipt_ULOG ipt_TTL ipt_ttl ipt_TOS ipt_tos ipt_TCPMSS ipt_SAME ipt_REJECT ipt_REDIRECT ipt_recent ipt_owner ipt_NETMAP ipt_MASQUERADE ipt_LOG ipt_iprange ipt_hashlimit ipt_ECN ipt_ecn ipt_DSCP ipt_dscp ipt_CLUSTERIP ipt_ah ipt_addrtype ip_nat_tftp ip_nat_snmp_basic ip_nat_pptp ip_nat_irc ip_nat_ftp ip_nat_amanda ip_conntrack_tftp ip_conntrack_pptp ip_conntrack_netbios_ns ip_conntrack_irc ip_conntrack_ftp ts_kmp ip_conntrack_amanda xt_tcpmss xt_pkttype xt_physdev bridge xt_NFQUEUE xt_MARK xt_mark xt_mac xt_limit xt_length xt_helper xt_dccp xt_conntrack xt_CONNMARK xt_connmark xt_CLASSIFY xt_tcpudp xt_state iptable_nat ip_nat ip_conntrack iptable_mangle nfnetlink iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables dm_snapshot dm_mirror loop amd64_agp agpgart i2c_viapro shpchp pci_hotplug parport_pc parport pcspkr i2c_core psmouse floppy evdev rtc serio_raw ide_disk via82cxxx gener
> ic ide_core processor 8139too e100
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: sis900 via_rhine mii forcedeth r8169 sata_via sata_uli sata_promise sata_mv sata_sis sata_sil sata_nv libata ext3 jbd mbcache sd_mod scsi_mod dm_mod linear faulty multipath raid10 raid1 raid0 md_mod
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: CPU: 0
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: EIP: 0060:[<c0141d20>] Not tainted VLI
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: EFLAGS: 00010006 (2.6.18-5-k7 #1)
> Dec 18 07:09:16 demo kernel: EIP is at find_lock_page+0x20/0x77
I suggest running memtest86 on your system to see if your memory is
failing.
--
dann frazier
Reply to: