Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2008 21:56:37 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: bad pmd ffff810000207238(9090909090909090). |
| |
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:36:07PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 27 May 2008, Fede wrote: > > > > Today I tried to start a firewalling script and failed due to an unrelated > > issue, but when I checked the log I saw this: > > > > May 27 20:38:15 kaoz ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team > > May 27 20:38:28 kaoz Netfilter messages via NETLINK v0.30. > > May 27 20:38:28 kaoz nf_conntrack version 0.5.0 (16384 buckets, 65536 max) > > May 27 20:38:28 kaoz ctnetlink v0.93: registering with nfnetlink. > > May 27 20:38:28 kaoz ClusterIP Version 0.8 loaded successfully > > May 27 20:38:28 kaoz mm/memory.c:127: bad pmd > > ffff810000207238(9090909090909090). > > > > I also found another post with a very similar issue. The other post had almost > > the same message (*mm*/*memory*.*c*:*127*: *bad* *pmd* > > ffff810000207808(9090909090909090).) > > > > Does anyone know what is it? > > Thanks a lot for re-reporting this: it was fun to work it out. > It's not a rootkit, it's harmless, but we ought to fix the noise. > Simple patch below, but let me explain more verbosely first. > > What was really interesting in your report was that the address > is so close to that in OGAWA-San's report. I had a look at that > page on my x86_64 boxes, and they have lots of 0x90s there too. > It's just some page alignment filler that x86_64 kernel startup > has missed cleaning up - patch below fixes that. There's no > security aspect to it: the entries were already not-present, > they just generate this noise by triggering the pmd_bad test.
Is there a particular reason we use 0x90 as an alignment filler ? If we can put anything else, at least next time it will not get confused with NOPs. We could use 0xAF (Alignment Filler) for instance.
Well done BTW ;-)
Reagrds, Willy
| |