| Summary: | [RFE] Make sure ABRT stores the first not-tainted oops | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | David Jaša <djasa> |
| Component: | abrt | Assignee: | abrt <abrt-devel-list> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | David Kutálek <dkutalek> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 6.3 | CC: | dkutalek, dvlasenk, jmoskovc, mnowak, nobody+abrt-devel-list, npajkovs, rvokal |
| Target Milestone: | beta | Keywords: | FutureFeature, Improvement |
| Target Release: | 6.4 | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | abrt-2.0.8-8.el6 | Doc Type: | Enhancement |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-02-21 07:53:11 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
David Jaša
2012-03-31 10:40:40 UTC
Is it even possible to find out this information? I think that kernel should log waht tainted it. BTW after I reported this bug, I learned why the kernel got tainted in my case - it got tainted by first warning, not by some module. The abrt's dedupe mechanism then merged three duplicate warnings to the latest one and then discarded everything (IIRC I reported this in a separate bug). (In reply to comment #2) > I think that kernel should log waht tainted it. > > BTW after I reported this bug, I learned why the kernel got tainted in my > case - it got tainted by first warning, not by some module. The abrt's > dedupe mechanism then merged three duplicate warnings to the latest one and > then discarded everything (IIRC I reported this in a separate bug). - yes, this is a known bug and I think it has already been fixed (at least in upstream) (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I think that kernel should log waht tainted it. > > > > BTW after I reported this bug, I learned why the kernel got tainted in my > > case - it got tainted by first warning, not by some module. The abrt's > > dedupe mechanism then merged three duplicate warnings to the latest one and > > then discarded everything (IIRC I reported this in a separate bug). > > - yes, this is a known bug and I think it has already been fixed (at least > in upstream) it's fixed by commit commit 4586e9e40c493cef93e08a8dee2fc0768593da50 Author: Nikola Pajkovsky <npajkovs@redhat.com> Date: Fri May 4 14:48:55 2012 +0200 oops: don't create oops dir in reverse when kernel starts printing oops, only very first one is not tainted. If we start in reverse, it will firstly create direcotry with tainted oops and others will be deleted as dup of first one (if there are same), thus we loose NOT tainted oops. Signed-off-by: Nikola Pajkovsky <npajkovs@redhat.com> but not yet released This request was not resolved in time for the current release. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This request was erroneously removed from consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4, which is currently under development. This request will be evaluated for inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4. Yes, it is fixed in rhel6 git branch too: commit 8b0956286967e92bd68c04eb4e051225f00fce44 Author: Jiri Moskovcak <jmoskovc@redhat.com> Date: Thu Jul 12 11:24:39 2012 +0200 oops: don't create oops dir in reverse rhbz#814594 when kernel starts printing oops, only very first one is not tainted. If we start in reverse, it will firstly create direcotry with tainted oops and others will be deleted as dup of first one (if there are same), thus we loose NOT tainted oops. Signed-off-by: Nikola Pajkovsky <npajkovs@redhat.com> Cause When a multiple kernel oops happens in a short period of time ABRT only the first one is relevant, because the later oopses might be just consequences of the first problem. ABRT was wrongly sorting the processed oopses, so it saved the last oops instead of the first one. Consequence The most important first oops never got into problem report. Fix Fixed the processing order. Result In case of processing more oops at the same time the first one is correctly saved Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-0290.html |