Bug 168761
| Summary: | kernel 2.6.13-1.1560_FC5 - strange "idr_remove" traceback | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michal Jaegermann <michal> |
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Dave Jones <davej> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Brian Brock <bbrock> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | pfrields, wtogami |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-03-06 05:20:44 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
repeatable with current rawhide ? > repeatable with current rawhide ?
Well, I got it with a relatively current one. :-)
As I wrote I could not reproduce that even with a setup where this showed up.
If this is some race then that I cannot repeat it does not mean that much.
Ok, there's no other reports of this, and that code did change somewhat since 2.6.13, so I'm going to close this. Feel free to reopen/file a new bug if it reoccurs. |
Description of problem: The following message from a kernel 2.6.13-1.1560_FC5 on x86_64 showed up when I was shutting down an extra X-server: idr_remove called for id=5 which is not allocated. Call Trace:<ffffffff8020110b>{idr_remove+255} <ffffffff8024de9b>{release_dev+1920} <ffffffff8016a13e>{free_block+443} <ffffffff801673ca>{dbg_redzone1+28} <ffffffff80167e96>{cache_free_debugcheck+516} <ffffffff801675b0>{poison_obj+49} <ffffffff8024dece>{tty_release+17} <ffffffff80186875>{__fput+188} <ffffffff80183f06>{filp_close+90} <ffffffff801367c3>{put_files_struct+117} <ffffffff8013781e>{do_exit+532} <ffffffff80138305>{sys_exit_group+0} <ffffffff8010daec>{tracesys+209} Apart of this "which is not allocated" and a traceback so far this does not seem to have any further consequences. I also failed to reproduce that.