On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 17:28 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Hi Ben-- > > Thanks for the quick followup! > > On 08/07/2011 12:36 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 18:36 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > >> We've applied the attached patch (a simple workaround to ensure no > >> division-by-zero) to the debian packages for several weeks in production > >> (over a month on some machines) and haven't seen a recurrence of the > >> problem. > > > > This doesn't really fix the bug - division by zero is just a symptom of > > a more fundamental problem which has yet to be identified. > > yep, that's why i called it a workaround :) > > > As a result, > > it hasn't been accepted upstream and won't be accepted in Debian. > > > > That said, I would consider applying a variant that WARNs before 'fixing > > up' the zero divisor, as a *temporary* measure to aid in understanding > > the bug (more like > > <https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16991#c13>). > > That sounds reasonable to me. Are you up for preparing such a patch or > do you need me to do it? I'm quite busy so if you could try to do it that would be helpful. > > I notice your 'oops' messages show 'Tainted: G W' which indicates there > > was an earlier kernel warning. What was the previous warning? > > hmm, we've seen this on multiple machines, and they didn't all have a > prior warning. in the referenced machine, though, it was 5 months > previously, a netdev watchdog timeout. It doesn't seem related to me, > but i'm happy to include the dump here in case anyone else can extract > meaning from it: [...] Agreed. Ben.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part