Bug#665413: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request
Package: linux-image-2.6.32-5-486
Version: 2.6.32-41
less than 10 minutes after booting to 2.6.32-5-486 on an HP d530 SFF
workstation (model DG784A) with 4GiB of RAM, i got this kernel BUG and
then panic:
[ 574.852044] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at b4777dbf
[ 574.856011] IP: [<c109520e>] mark_files_ro+0x27/0x6f
[ 574.856011] *pde = 00000000
[ 574.856011] Oops: 0002 [#1]
[ 574.856011] last sysfs file: /sys/devices/virtual/block/md0/md/metadata_version
[ 574.856011] Modules linked in: ext3 jbd mbcache raid1 md_mod dm_crypt dm_mod pl2303 usbserial sd_mod crc_t10dif ata_generic i915 tg3 3c59x drm_kms_helper tulip mii libphy uhci_hcd drm i2c_algo_bit snd_intel8x0 snd_ac97_codec ac97_bus snd_pcm snd_timer i2c_i801 ata_piix snd soundcore shpchp parport_pc button processor thermal parport libata i2c_core ehci_hcd rng_core snd_page_alloc evdev psmouse serio_raw pcspkr scsi_mod pci_hotplug usbcore nls_base video thermal_sys output
[ 574.856011]
[ 574.856011] Pid: 6349, comm: dpkg-deb Not tainted (2.6.32-5-486 #1) HP d530 SFF(DG784A)
[ 574.856011] EIP: 0060:[<c109520e>] EFLAGS: 00010282 CPU: 0
[ 574.856011] EIP is at mark_files_ro+0x27/0x6f
[ 574.856011] EAX: f3435c85 EBX: c134239c ECX: f3435c00 EDX: f3431800
[ 574.856011] ESI: f3435a80 EDI: 00000008 EBP: c13423b4 ESP: f57bff40
[ 574.856011] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 00e0 SS: 0068
[ 574.856011] Process dpkg-deb (pid: 6349, ti=f57be000 task=f570e080 task.ti=f57be000)
[ 574.856011] Stack:
[ 574.856011] c105b8ef f57bff60 c1342278 00000085 c1408a1c c140881c f3436580 c140841c
[ 574.856011] <0> f57bff60 00000046 00000009 00000024 c1407b20 c105b9be c1026dfa 00000001
[ 574.856011] <0> 0000000a 00000100 00000046 00000010 092b0282 bfa5f828 c1026ed1 00000010
[ 574.856011] Call Trace:
[ 574.856011] [<c105b8ef>] ? __rcu_process_callbacks+0x292/0x352
[ 574.856011] [<c105b9be>] ? rcu_process_callbacks+0xf/0x1f
[ 574.856011] [<c1026dfa>] ? __do_softirq+0x8e/0x135
[ 574.856011] [<c1026ed1>] ? do_softirq+0x30/0x3b
[ 574.856011] [<c1026f94>] ? irq_exit+0x25/0x53
[ 574.856011] [<c100e963>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x60/0x68
[ 574.856011] [<c10037f1>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x31/0x40
[ 574.856011] Code: f0 00 00 c3 57 56 89 c6 53 8d 78 74 8b 56 74 eb 54 8b 42 0c 8b 40 0c 0f b7 40 6e 25 00 f0 00 00 3d 00 80 00 00 75 3c 8b 42 14 85 <c0> 74 35 8b 42 1c a8 02 74 2e 8b 5a 08 83 e0 fd 89 42 1c 85 db
[ 574.856011] EIP: [<c109520e>] mark_files_ro+0x27/0x6f SS:ESP 0068:f57bff40
[ 574.856011] CR2: 00000000b4777dbf
[ 575.058358] ---[ end trace 31af091d3864bfb9 ]---
[ 575.062966] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
[ 575.069310] Pid: 6349, comm: dpkg-deb Tainted: G D 2.6.32-5-486 #1
[ 575.076170] Call Trace:
[ 575.078607] [<c1244ccb>] ? panic+0x38/0xde
[ 575.082790] [<c1246a1c>] ? oops_end+0x81/0x8d
[ 575.087227] [<c10151c8>] ? no_context+0x104/0x10d
[ 575.092011] [<c1015318>] ? __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x147/0x152
[ 575.097835] [<c10a21b8>] ? touch_atime+0x69/0xd9
[ 575.102530] [<c109a309>] ? pipe_read+0x32c/0x33b
[ 575.107228] [<c10069b9>] ? sched_clock+0x5/0x7
[ 575.111754] [<c10376eb>] ? sched_clock_local+0x15/0x11c
[ 575.117057] [<c1247851>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x26a
[ 575.121927] [<c101532d>] ? bad_area_nosemaphore+0xa/0xc
[ 575.127230] [<c124612b>] ? error_code+0x6b/0x70
[ 575.131840] [<c109520e>] ? mark_files_ro+0x27/0x6f
[ 575.136709] [<c105b8ef>] ? __rcu_process_callbacks+0x292/0x352
[ 575.142618] [<c105b9be>] ? rcu_process_callbacks+0xf/0x1f
[ 575.148095] [<c1026dfa>] ? __do_softirq+0x8e/0x135
[ 575.152964] [<c1026ed1>] ? do_softirq+0x30/0x3b
[ 575.157574] [<c1026f94>] ? irq_exit+0x25/0x53
[ 575.162010] [<c100e963>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x60/0x68
[ 575.167833] [<c10037f1>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x31/0x40
I normally don't use the -486 variant on this machine (due to the 4GiB
of RAM), but i've been having other trouble with the machine (to be
reported in due course), and i had booted into a -486 as a fallback.
The only kernel boot parameter on this run was console=ttyS0,115200n8 --
i brought up the rest of the system by hand during this fallback
attempt.
I've run memtest86+ on this machine and the memory shows no errors in
that program.
Let me know if there are other details i can report that would help with
this bug report; sorry i'm not able to get the machine to a stable point
yet to run reportbug on it directly.
--dkg
Reply to: