From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935181AbYEBNLQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 09:11:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760698AbYEBNLA (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 09:11:00 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:32948 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759837AbYEBNK6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2008 09:10:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 06:10:18 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Phil Oester Cc: Ryan Roth , Ryan.Roth@CH2M.com, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10586] New: High Number of Segfaults onMacBookStarting With 2.6.24.5 Kernel Message-Id: <20080502061018.5557d067.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080502121945.GA18667@linuxace.com> References: <20080501130444.cc5c63e8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <86A21F45FFA48B408A65E67054362EB6069DD742@CULEBRA.amr.ch2m.com> <20080501133003.be723364.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <86A21F45FFA48B408A65E67054362EB621C948@CULEBRA.amr.ch2m.com> <481A5276.4040607@sbcglobal.net> <20080501170239.9b740877.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <481A5A94.2080400@sbcglobal.net> <20080501173408.384b4fc3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080502020815.GA5155@linuxace.com> <20080501192838.8ecb81c2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080502121945.GA18667@linuxace.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2 May 2008 05:19:45 -0700 Phil Oester wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:28:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:08:15 -0700 Phil Oester wrote: > > > > > FWIW, I recently upgraded some boxes to 2.6.24.x, and started seeing tons of > > > qmail segfaults, which look remarkably similar to the above problem. 2.6.21 > > > did not exhibit this issue. > > > > > > May 1 22:06:03 mail80 kernel: qmail-smtpd[5319]: segfault at 0 ip 4884b473 sp fffeec1c error 4 in libc-2.6.so[487dd000+14e000] > > > May 1 22:06:03 mail80 kernel: qmail-smtpd[5491]: segfault at 0 ip 4884b473 sp ffb7179c error 4 in libc-2.6.so[487dd000+14e000] > > > May 1 22:06:03 mail80 kernel: qmail-smtpd[4669]: segfault at 0 ip 4884b473 sp fff3135c error 4 in libc-2.6.so[487dd000+14e000] > > > May 1 22:06:05 mail80 kernel: qmail-smtpd[5906]: segfault at 0 ip 4884b473 sp ffe1b24c error 4 in libc-2.6.so[487dd000+14e000] > > > May 1 22:06:07 mail80 kernel: qmail-smtpd[5898]: segfault at 0 ip 4884b473 sp ffe4e27c error 4 in libc-2.6.so[487dd000+14e000] > > > May 1 22:06:11 mail80 kernel: qmail-smtpd[5840]: segfault at 0 ip 4884b473 sp ffe04a2c error 4 in libc-2.6.so[487dd000+14e000] > > > > > > > Can you try fiddling with the norandmaps boot option and > > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space? > > echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space does not make any difference (and > is equivalent to norandmaps boot option according to docs). > > Unless you have other ideas, I can try to bisect this later today. No, I can't suggest anything else to try, sorry. Traditionally i386 never printed that message (in fact neither architecture should - it allows poeple to spam the logs, but it is at least ratelimited). In 2.6.23, i386 _does_ generate that message, in arch/i386/mm/fault.c In 2.6.24 the i386 and x86_64 fault handlers were renamed to arch/x86/mm/fault_[32|64].c and both versions generated the message. In 2.6.25 they were unified into a single arch/x86/mm/fault.c, and both architectures print the message. So afacit 2.6.23 _should_ be printing the message if qmail is indeed generating a segfault. But there's always the possibility that the message-printing code was simply broken in 2.6.23, and that your qmail has always been generating segfaults. Are any other problems observeable? Does qmail continue to operate normally in 2.6.24?