e100 doing bad things in 2.5.44.

DISCUSSION Dave Jones 2 participants 2 messages Oct 25, 2002 – Oct 26, 2002

Share & tools

Dave Jones

author

2002-10-25 18:45 UTC #0 lore raw

Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Debug: sleeping function called from illegal context at mm/slab.c:1384
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Call Trace:
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c011dd94>] __might_sleep+0x54/0x58
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c01403ae>] kmalloc+0x5a/0x314
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c017e2da>] proc_create+0x76/0xcc
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c017e3fb>] proc_mkdir+0x17/0x40
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c010a4c3>] register_irq_proc+0x6b/0xb0
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c010a2ba>] setup_irq+0x166/0x174
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c02b9424>] e100intr+0x0/0x308
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c0109b48>] request_irq+0x88/0xa4
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c02b84fa>] e100_open+0x106/0x188
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c02b9424>] e100intr+0x0/0x308
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c03a5080>] dev_open+0x50/0xb0
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c03a65e1>] dev_change_flags+0x51/0x104
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c03decc5>] devinet_ioctl+0x331/0x6d8
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c03e1bc7>] inet_ioctl+0xab/0xf0
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c039e6a1>] sock_ioctl+0xfd/0x160
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c0162cfb>] sys_ioctl+0x27f/0x2f5
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c0108029>] error_code+0x2d/0x38
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c01075c7>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

Another weirdo.. Check out the Speed..

Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver - version 2.1.24-k1
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Copyright (c) 2002 Intel Corporation
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: 
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: e100: selftest OK.
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: e100: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/100 VE Network Connection
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:   Mem:0xfeafc000  IRQ:20  Speed:0 Mbps  Dx:N/A
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:   Hardware receive checksums enabled

Signature · 1 line

| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

Jeff Garzik

2002-10-26 21:11 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 13 lines · Dave Jones

Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Debug: sleeping function called from illegal context at mm/slab.c:1384
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Call Trace:
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c011dd94>] __might_sleep+0x54/0x58
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c01403ae>] kmalloc+0x5a/0x314
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c017e2da>] proc_create+0x76/0xcc
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c017e3fb>] proc_mkdir+0x17/0x40
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c010a4c3>] register_irq_proc+0x6b/0xb0
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c010a2ba>] setup_irq+0x166/0x174
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c02b9424>] e100intr+0x0/0x308
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c0109b48>] request_irq+0x88/0xa4
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:  [<c02b84fa>] e100_open+0x106/0x188

Well, it holds bdp->isolate_lock for an incredibly long time, so that might trigger this. At least interrupts aren't disabled.

Another bug: e100_close doesn't get the lock.

Quoted 9 lines

Another weirdo.. Check out the Speed..

Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver - version 2.1.24-k1
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Copyright (c) 2002 Intel Corporation
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: e100: selftest OK.
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel: e100: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/100 VE Network Connection
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:   Mem:0xfeafc000  IRQ:20  Speed:0 Mbps  Dx:N/A
Oct 25 18:38:12 tetrachloride kernel:   Hardware receive checksums enabled

Cosmetic or real, that's indeed another bug...

Jeff