Bug 169238
Summary: | GDM/KDM fails to start after upgrade to xorg-x11-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Kam Leo <a1tmblwd> | ||||||||
Component: | xorg-x11 | Assignee: | X/OpenGL Maintenance List <xgl-maint> | ||||||||
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> | ||||||||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||||
Version: | 4 | CC: | kb6ql, mw-redhat, pomec | ||||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||
Hardware: | i386 | ||||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
Fixed In Version: | FC5 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||
Last Closed: | 2006-06-27 16:43:18 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: | |||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Kam Leo
2005-09-25 21:57:51 UTC
Created attachment 119242 [details]
Log of messages containing kdm failure to open
Changes summary to reflect problem more accurately. Enabled selinux and auditd. Upgraded to xorg-x11-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2. Problem is repeatable. > rm: cannot remove "/var/run/xdcmtl/dcmtl" : Is directory
Did you cut and paste this from somewhere, or did you type it in by hand
manually? Is that the real dirname/filename, or could you have made a
typographical error manually typing it in?
The reason I ask, is because I'm unable to find any reference in the OS
to this directory/file "/var/run/xdcmtl/dcmtl", and google doesn't find
it anywhere either. Google suggests "xdmctl".
Either way, I'm not sure what that is, or why you'd be seeing that error,
but I think it is not related to the problem you are experiencing.
Please paste the output of "rpm -qa |grep xorg-x11 | sort".
Thanks in advance.
Setting status to "NEEDINFO_REPORTER"
[root@fc4i386 etc]# grep -r xdmctl * grep: alternatives/jaxp_parser_impl: No such file or directory grep: httpd/run/sdp: No such device or address grep: httpd/run/dbus/system_bus_socket: No such device or address grep: httpd/run/acpid.socket: No such device or address selinux/targeted/contexts/files/file_contexts:/var/run/xdmctl(/.*)? system_u:object_r:xdm_var_run_t grep: X11/X.rpmsave: No such file or directory grep: X11/X: No such file or directory I typed the error message in by hand. There's a typo: "xdcmtl/dcmtl" should be "xdmctl/dmctl". The install xorg-x11 rpms are as follows: xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 I performed some additional testing. The following combination of packages works: xorg-x11-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-37.FC4.45 xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-37.FC4.45 xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-37.FC4.45 xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-37.FC4.45 xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 Upgrading the FC4.45 to FC4.49.2 release of any of these packages causes GDM or KDM to fail to start: xorg-x11-font-utils xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU xorg-x11-tools Please disregard previous post. System is very unstable with the updated FC4.49.2 upgrade packages. Upgrading to xorg-x11-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 with its required xorg-x11-xxx.FC4.49.2 dependenency packages I can get X to start when switching from runlevel 3 to runlevel 5. However, X fails to start when the system is rebooted. I have a card with radeon 7000 on three Athlon 64 bit systems---three different monitors, but same problem on all three as described above. More precisely, the chip, as reported by the system, is ATI Radeon RV100 QY [Radeon 7000/VE] The last of the three systems was installed 1 week ago, and was working fine with original FC4 of the DVD, but after running 'yum update', I started to see the problem. Here is what I _can_ do: When the machine boots (I already disabled 'rhgb quiet'), I press 'i' for interactive mode. Right after the local service starts, I hold down Alt-F1, and after the monitor flickering just once a bit, I get virtual console 1. I now press Alt-F7, and I see the gdm greeting screen, and all is well. I do not always succeed in getting to VC1, but almost always; I guess "it" (whatever it is) just has to get the Alt-F1 at the right time. Here is the gdm log file # cat \:0.log X Window System Version 6.8.2 Release Date: 9 February 2005 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 6.8.2 Build Operating System: Linux 2.6.9-22.ELsmp x86_64 [ELF] Current Operating System: Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.14-1.1653_FC4 #1 Tue Dec 13 21:34:16 EST 2005 x86_64 Build Date: 21 September 2005 Build Host: hs20-bc1-5.build.redhat.com Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.X.Org to make sure that you have the latest version. Module Loader present OS Kernel: Linux version 2.6.14-1.1653_FC4 (bhcompile.redhat.com) (gcc version 4.0.2 20051125 (Red Hat 4.0.2-8)) #1 Tue Dec 13 21:34:16 EST 2005 Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.0.log", Time: Tue Dec 20 01:33:42 2005 (==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf" Could not init font path element /usr/lib/X11/fonts/CID, removing from list! Two comments: Despite the fact that I have the commented # Load "dri" line in /etc/X11/xorg.conf, the xorg logfile reports (WW) RADEON(0): Direct Rendering is disabled by default on Radeon VE/7000 hardware due to instability, but has been forced on with "Option "dri" in xorg.conf. You may experience instability. So I double checked: ]# grep -i option /etc/X11/xorg.conf # Option "Xleds" "1 2 3" # Option "XkbDisable" # Option "XkbModel" "pc102" # Option "XkbModel" "microsoft" # Option "XkbLayout" "de" # Option "XkbLayout" "de" # Option "XkbVariant" "nodeadkeys" # Option "XkbOptions" "ctrl:swapcaps" # Option "XkbOptions" "ctrl:nocaps" Option "XkbModel" "pc105" Option "XkbLayout" "us" Option "Protocol" "IMPS/2" Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice" Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5" Option "Emulate3Buttons" "yes" Option "dpms" The other remark is that the system is usable otherwise. For example, the sequence C-M-F1 C-M-Del reboots it. I am having the same problem. gdm cannot start x upon entering RL 5.
however, i can start x manually from an RL 3 login with startx.
following rpms installed:
xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-sdk-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-Xdmx-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
xorg-x11-Xvfb-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2
the gdm log stops at this line:
(==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf"
completely consistent behavior -- always happens on entry to RL 5.
i telnetted in and captured an Xorg.0.log during the fail. and compared it to
the one from my manual startx. the only significant difference (i.e. not
timestamp) was:
48c48
< (++) using VT number 7
---
> (--) using VT number 7
the second line (--) is from the log of the successful manual startx.
Created attachment 123066 [details]
syslog showing initial failure, wait 2 minutes, second failure
here's the syslog of a failure, which i grabbed from a telnet session while gdm
was hung trying to start.
it initially failed to start after ?6 tries, presented a message box to say it
would wait 2 minutes, and then tried again. the log shows this period.
Created attachment 123132 [details]
side by side diff of failed and successful X startups
i switched back to the nv driver to be sure that it was not something to do
with the nvidia driver. i copied off an Xorg.0.log while the system was
attempting (and failing) to boot into RL 5. then i rebooted into RL 3, logged
in and manually did a startx from a non-root user. as usual, this time X
started.
i have attached a side by side diff of the two logs. what seems interesting to
me is that the left (failed side) does not appear to be able to identify the
monitor, while the right (successful manual invocation) side does seem to be
able to do so.
note the section of differences beginning with:
<snip>
(II) NV(0): Probing for EDID on I2C bus A... (II) NV(0):
Probing for EDID on I2C bus A...
(II) NV(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" registered at address 0xA0. (II) NV(0): I2C
device "DDC:ddc2" registered at address 0xA0.
(II) NV(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" removed. (II) NV(0): I2C
device "DDC:ddc2" removed.
(II) NV(0): ... none found | (--) NV(0): DDC
detected a CRT:
> (II) NV(0):
Manufacturer: HIQ Model: 91da Serial#: 8060
> (II) NV(0):
Year: 2005 Week: 28
> (II) NV(0):
EDID Version: 1.3
> (II) NV(0):
Analog Display Input, Input Voltage Level: 0.700
> (II) NV(0):
Sync: Separate
> (II) NV(0): Max
H-Image Size [cm]: horiz.: 37 vert.: 30
> (II) NV(0):
Gamma: 2.20
> (II) NV(0):
DPMS capabilities: StandBy Suspend Off; RGB/Color
<snip>
this seems to be a significant difference? what can i do to help? does this
help? is anyone there?
I have 3 FC4 systems that are having similar symptoms. See : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178073 Greg Ennis (In reply to comment #9) > Two comments: > > Despite the fact that I have the commented > > # Load "dri" > > line in /etc/X11/xorg.conf, the xorg logfile reports > > (WW) RADEON(0): Direct Rendering is disabled by default on Radeon VE/7000 > hardware due to instability, but has been forced on with > "Option "dri" in xorg.conf. You may experience instability. Yes, that is 100% correct operation. The "Load" lines in the X config file load X server modules into memory. That is all they do. Loading the DRI module into the X server's memory space, makes the X server "DRI capable", however it very much does *NOT* "enable DRI". Commenting the module out, does however disable DRI, but only because not loading the module at all, makes the DRI functionality unavailable to individual drivers. There is a great misconception in the public for some reason about this. It is the individual video drivers that determine wether or not DRI will be enabled or disabled on a per driver basis. By default, each video driver examines the current configuration, and determines wether the current configuration is compatible with the implementation of DRI for the particular hardware (or wether DRI is even implemented at all for the current hardware). If DRI is not implemented for that hardware, or if the driver determines that the current configuration is incompatible with DRI for any reason, the driver may decide to disable DRI functionality, at which point it will echo a message to the log that DRI is disabled. The X server "DRI" extension remains loaded, however the DRI functionality in the driver is what is disabled. This bug is getting rather confusing. It is a bug filed about a Radeon problem, which other people are jumping on with nvidia and other unrelated problems, which makes it increasingly difficult to sort out the useful information in the bug, and separate it from the information about other totally unrelated problems. As a polite request to everyone CC'd on this report, I'd like to ask everyone to please stop adding nvidia and other unrelated comments to this radeon bug report. If you have a problem with other video hardware that for whatever reason sounds similar to this bug, please file a new bug report directly in X.Org bugzilla at http://bugs.freedesktop.org in the "xorg" bug report. Keep your bugs about one specific issue, on one specific piece of hardware. This may mean that multiple bugs get filed by different people, but later if developers can determine that the multiple bugs are in fact duplicates or caused by the same issue, it is easier to close them as dupes later, than to have multiple people discussing unrelated problems in a single bug report and trying to determine what information is for what problem. Additionally the following info: rm: cannot remove "/var/run/xdcmtl/dcmtl" : Is directory has nothing to do with the radeon hardware working or not working in this bug report. I'm not sure why you're seeing that message, as none of the rpm pre/post/etc. scripts do anything with that directory at all. That sounds more like an rpm problem, or local system issue of some sort, and I am not able to reproduce it locally. We have not had any other reports of people experiencing that problem either, which suggests also that it is a local issue perhaps. Having said all of that, I am able to use both KDM and GDM on a fully updated local test system with the indicated xorg-x11 version, with the same video hardware. Unless you can provide additional information that suggests that this is an X server or driver bug, it is my opinion that this is a local configuration issue or SElinux interference with your configuration. Since it is not easy to conclude anything 100% however at this point, I strongly recommend posting to xorg.org about the problem and seeking technical assistance to determine the problem and/or narrow it down. Then if a real bug can be found which turns out to be a bug in the X server or driver, please update this bug report with the updated details. Thanks in advance. Setting status to NEEDINFO_REPORTER, and awaiting additional information. mike, i'm truly sorry you had a bad day. however, you may wish to think some about how being unhelpful, rude and supercilious doesn't help any of us. neither does deliberately warping the problem so that you can ignore it further. i hope you have a better day tomorrow. i might even be willing to do some further investigation, had i some faint hope that it wouldn't be rudely treated or ignored. I am not sure he had a bad day, since he included a nice long explanation about the issue. But what needs to be realized that Radeon 7000 chips are unusable. I had three different cards with this chip, and while the computers were working fine after initial installation of Fc4, as soon as I updated the system via yum update gdm could not start on any of them. Changing the line FontPath "unix/:7100" did work on one computer for a while, but on the other two, I just changed to an nvidia card. Finally about a week ago the third system also gave in, and gdm would not start. Now, as far as Mike's > There is a great misconception in the public for some reason about this. I'd like to remind him again about the error message > Direct Rendering is disabled by default on Radeon VE/7000 > hardware due to instability, but has been forced on with > "Option "dri" in xorg.conf. You may experience instability. Do not you think that this error message is certainly responsible for the misconception? I comment out the "dri" line, but the message above still claims that my xorg conf's "dri" line forced Direct Rendering. In any case, we are talking about a very severe problem, since for users the computer is completely unusable, and there has been no remedy for at least four months now. For the success of tracking down the problem, I would be glad to send my video card to wherever RH might want me to. (In reply to comment #15) > mike, i'm truly sorry you had a bad day. I didn't have a bad day. ;o) > however, you may wish to think some > about how being unhelpful, rude and supercilious doesn't help any of us. My comment was intended to summarize general thoughts on the issue, to try to steer future feedback from people experiencing the problem to be more useful in diagnosing the problem, and to hopefully steer people having unrelated problems to file their own separate bug reports instead of cluttering up the original issue that was reported. If you've read my comment as rude, you got the wrong impression. > neither does deliberately warping the problem so that you can ignore it > further. Additional information is required in this report before anything can actively be done to solve it. That's not ignoring anything, it's simply stating the facts. > i hope you have a better day tomorrow. Every day is better than the last. ;o) > i might even be willing to do some further investigation, had i some faint > hope that it wouldn't be rudely treated or ignored. Even if there's no guarantee we can reproduce or fix a given problem, any additional information that you can supply would be great. Please be careful however not to assume your issue is being ignored if nothing seems to be getting done about it. Some issues take longer to examine, reproduce, diagnose, etc. than others, and unfortunately some issues can never be reproduced, and thus may not be easily resolveable. When in doubt, it is best to report problems to X.Org bugzilla, or discuss them on public X.Org mailing lists to maximize the number of developers, maintainers, and users who are aware of the problem you are experiencing, and thus may be able to collectively work together to diagnose and resolve a given issue. The resources available in the X.Org community, greatly dwarf the hardware and manpower resources available via Red Hat bugzilla. Nonetheless, our engineering team does our best to try to address as many issues as possible over time. Hopefully we'll be able to address this one as well. Thanks in advance. (In reply to comment #16) > I am not sure he had a bad day, since he included a nice long explanation about > the issue. Correct. ;o) > But what needs to be realized that Radeon 7000 chips are unusable. > I had three different cards with this chip, and while the computers were working > fine after initial installation of Fc4, as soon as I updated the system via This bug was filed about Radeon 7200 initially. For the time being at least, I would like to assume that the 7200 issue is a separate issue from any other Radeon hardware, or non-Radeon hardware, because we simply don't know at this point. There have been quite a number of Radeon 7000 related problems in the Xorg 6.8.x series thus far, however they have been specific to that chipset. It may turn out later on that the Radeon 7200 problem reported here is more generic than specific to that chip... hard to say just yet, but it's easier to close multiple bugs as a dupe later, than to try to separate 2 or 3 separate issues out of one bug report later on. ;o) The reason I mention this here at all to you guys, is because I genuinely want to help as best as possible. Sometimes people group issues together in one bug report, and when we fix the issue initially reported and close the bug report as fixed, one or more people reopen the report to say that their problem is still present, even though the original reporter has claimed their problem is now fixed - thus indicating all of the people are experiencing different problems all along. ;o) It can make life much more difficult as a developer to separate the issues mentally and spend time fixing a given person's problem, if it is interspersed with information from unrelated but similar symptomatic issues of other people. ;o) That's all I was trying to say above. It wasn't intended to be rude or sound rude in any way. Sometimes it's hard to word things in a bug report in a way that will be universally read and carry a single tone/mood with it I guess. ;o) I find adding additional smileys everywhere tends to have people interpret things in a more friendly way though, so I'm using a lot of extra smileys now, to make sure nobody thinks I'm being rude. ;o) Have a good day all! ;o) > gdm could not start on any of them. Changing the line > > FontPath "unix/:7100" > > did work on one computer for a while, but on the other two, I just changed to an > nvidia card. Finally about a week ago the third system also gave in, and gdm > would not start. > > Now, as far as Mike's > > > There is a great misconception in the public for some reason about this. > > I'd like to remind him again about the error message > > > Direct Rendering is disabled by default on Radeon VE/7000 > > hardware due to instability, but has been forced on with > > "Option "dri" in xorg.conf. You may experience instability. > > Do not you think that this error message is certainly responsible for the > misconception? I comment out the "dri" line, but the message above still claims > that my xorg conf's "dri" line forced Direct Rendering. > > In any case, we are talking about a very severe problem, since for users the > computer is completely unusable, and there has been no remedy for at least four > months now. > > For the success of tracking down the problem, I would be glad to send my video > card to wherever RH might want me to. Upgrading FC4 to the 2.6.15 kernel on February 2nd caused X to fail on my system. The Fedora List posted a fix which can be found here: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2006-February/msg00179.html. Upgrading module-init-tools with module-init-tools-3.2-0.pre9.0.FC4.1.i386.rpm fixed that problem. Since that worked I thought I would give the version 49.2 xorg-x11 packages a try. What do you know? The new version of module-init-tools fixes the problem on my system! Now if you guys could clean up the garbage shown when X is switching modes (blank screen/double buffer?) that would be really be nice. The fix worked for all of two reboots. After that the problem returned. I have reverted back to v45. Sorry for the noise. Since this bugzilla report was filed, there have been several major updates to the X Window System, which may resolve this issue. Users who have experienced this problem are encouraged to upgrade to the latest version of Fedora Core, which can be obtained from: http://fedora.redhat.com/download If this issue turns out to still be reproduceable in the latest version of Fedora Core, please file a bug report in the X.Org bugzilla located at http://bugs.freedesktop.org in the "xorg" component. Once you've filed your bug report to X.Org, if you paste the new bug URL here, Red Hat will continue to track the issue in the centralized X.Org bug tracker, and will review any bug fixes that become available for consideration in future updates. Setting status to "CURRENTRELEASE". |