Hide Forgot
abrt version: 1.1.17 architecture: x86_64 Attached file: backtrace, 2789 bytes cmdline: not_applicable component: kernel executable: kernel kernel: 2.6.35.10-74.fc14.x86_64 package: kernel reason: kernel BUG at mm/slub.c:2834! release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin) tainted: 128 time: 1299345948 uid: 0 comment ----- Please note that - to date, more recent F14 stable kernels, don't permit building this kernel module. - to date, more recent syntek trunk revs, don't build against any F14 stable kernel (eg. rev 100 or 101) Whenever I reproduce this bug "on purpose" to document it (3rd time already), I seen to face two distinct levels of severity : once again I needed two attempts to capture the backtrace (both after fresh boot) : - First crash was NOT handled, system just frooze, system logs just stopped. - Second crash WAS handled, system recovered, oops was listed in ABRT. Apart from the present bug, I can use this kernel module daily, just fine, with several videoconf apps. Additional (extended) information about using this kernel module in Fedora, is available in another bug report (this is about the fact that this webcam is still not suported by default, so I provided here the steps I followed, so I could use my webcam, and links to related threads and bugs at sourceforge) : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573241 Available if you wish any further info, please ask. Thanks, Xavier How to reproduce ----- Hardware is ASUS V1S laptop with 174f:6a31 webcam 1. Boot kernel 2.6.35.10-74.fc14.x86_64 2. Build and install rev.99 of syntek kernel module @ sourceforge (see comments here after) 3. Start two concurrent processes initializing the webcam "almost at once" (eg. two distinct skype logins, I use panel shortcuts for each) System ALWAYS crash ...if second processes tries accessing the webcam *while* first has not "released it".
Created attachment 482464 [details] File: backtrace
Since I did patch the module as follow (2011-03-06, daily use), the kernel didn't crash. (still using module source rev.99, and kernel 2.6.35.10-74.fc14.x86_64) patch: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/download.php?group_id=178178&atid=884191&file_id=403550&aid=3187007 thread: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3187007&group_id=178178&atid=884191 Is the kernel source expected to protect against such module errors ? Xavier
no, the kernel can't fix problems in third party code.
Thanks for your answer ..last year :)