| To: | Dan Malek <dan@embeddededge.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: iptables/vmalloc issues on alchemy |
| From: | Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr@hvrlab.org> |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:06:52 +0200 |
| Cc: | Josh Green <jgreen@users.sourceforge.net>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Pete Popov <ppopov@embeddedalley.com> |
| In-reply-to: | <4bf8c757c3a4d32177ab90b92eace823@embeddededge.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <1114505009.11315.37.camel@mini.intra> <1114627785.17008.21.camel@SillyPuddy.localdomain> <4bf8c757c3a4d32177ab90b92eace823@embeddededge.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:06 -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Josh Green wrote: > > > ...... I was > > planning on doing some additional gdb debugging of the failure > > (especially the initial large MMAP attempt by iptables, which was 1.5GB > > in my case). > > Oh wait .... I found a bug a while ago from someone trying to load > large modules. There is a problem if the kernel grows to need > additional PTE tables, the top level pointers don't get propagated > correctly and subsequent access by a thread that didn't actually > do the allocation would fail. I'm looking into this, including your > past message about 64-bit PTEs. additional note: the problem only shows up for me only when enabling CONFIG_64BIT_PHYS_ADDR, in case someone had problems reproducing the issue... regards, -- Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr@hvrlab.org> |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Big Endian au1550, ppopov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Big Endian au1550, JP |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: iptables/vmalloc issues on alchemy, Dan Malek |
| Next by Thread: | RE: iptables/vmalloc issues on alchemy, Christian Gan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |