[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#602444: firmware-brcm80211: Kernel Panic on "iwlist scan"



tags 602444 -patch 
thanks 

Hi Ben, and thanks for your answer,

Le jeudi 4 novembre 2010 23:37:48 Ben Hutchings, vous avez écrit :
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 22:52 +0100, Didier Raboud wrote:
> > Package: firmware-brcm80211
> 
> What has this got to do with the firmware?

The observable facts I could get is that:

* the boot completes when the package is not installed
* the boot stop with a Kernel Panic (or an Oops, I could not see exactly) when
  the package is installed.

I don't know the details of how it works internally, so I directed my suspicion 
against the firmware-* package. Thanks to you and Julien for the re-assigning.

> > Justification: breaks the whole system
> 
> No it doesn't.

I don't intend to play severity ping-pong, but "Impossible to boot, Kernel Panic 
at each boot" doesn't sound below RC to me.

> > I tested that here and it works.
> 
> [...]
> 
> That's odd because this module doesn't have such an option.  'maxcpus=1'
> is a kernel command-line parameter, and strangely enough we do not want
> to use it.

Yeah, I completely overlooked that; sorry. My approach was plain wrong.

Now I conducted a more precise investigation, _with_ the firmware-brcm80211 
package installed. I booted in "single" mode, hence getting a root console. No 
problem so far; the module is loaded. Running "iwlist scan" from that "single" 
root console leads to 100% reproducible oops.

So my guess is that Network-Manager uses the driver, eventually triggering a 
scan and then kernel oopses at that moment, leading to a non-completed boot. 
Would you need more information ? Of what sort ?

For now, I uninstalled the firmware package and will try with the broadcom-sta 
stack, unfortunately from non-free.

Cheers, 

OdyX

-- 
Didier Raboud, proud Debian Maintainer (DM).
CH-1020 Renens
didier@raboud.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: