- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Nvidia and 2.6.4
by orbitz＠ezabel.com April 13, 2004

April 13, 2004

Hello, I'm running gentoo with 2.6.4 kernel and my /var/log/messages is getting filled up with this junk: Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel Debug: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.c:1900 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel Call Trace: Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c011a1ab>] __might_sleep+0xab/0xd0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c013d0a6>] __kmalloc+0x96/0xa0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b7db39>] os_alloc_mem+0x5c/0x87 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b97df0>] _nv001308rm+0x10/0x28 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0cb058d>] _nv001518rm+0x7c9/0xb34 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0109588>] common_interrupt+0x18/0x20 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c34d61>] _nv002465rm+0x81/0x420 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c34d78>] _nv002465rm+0x98/0x420 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b8d965>] _nv001338rm+0x1d/0x24 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b7e555>] _nv005601rm+0xd/0x34 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b85c38>] _nv000858rm+0x300/0xe14 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0124bca>] run_timer_softirq+0x10a/0x1b0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0124d5f>] do_timer+0xdf/0xf0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c010b16d>] do_IRQ+0xfd/0x130 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0109588>] common_interrupt+0x18/0x20 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b81eed>] _nv002962rm+0x2c5/0x3b8 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b9c8a9>] _nv000899rm+0x4c9/0xf70 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b9c8bc>] _nv000899rm+0x4dc/0xf70 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0ba2df9>] _nv004363rm+0x59/0x90 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0bc05ea>] _nv005046rm+0x52/0x70 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0ba2d02>] _nv004679rm+0x1be/0x1d0 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0117fba>] wake_up_state+0x1a/0x20 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0126c31>] send_group_sig_info+0x31/0x60 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c016380b>] send_sigio_to_task+0xeb/0x100 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b8d7fe>] _nv001344rm+0x46/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0cb545a>] _nv001480rm+0x3a/0x7c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0163872>] send_sigio+0x52/0xf0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0267b78>] get_device+0x18/0x30 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c02ce9c7>] uhci_submit_common+0x1f7/0x2b0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0117fba>] wake_up_state+0x1a/0x20 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0126c31>] send_group_sig_info+0x31/0x60 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0cf912f>] _nv000176rm+0x57/0x3ec [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c018c9ac>] ext3_get_block_handle+0xac/0x360 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0138535>] mempool_alloc+0x75/0x160 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c011a5e0>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x50 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0138535>] mempool_alloc+0x75/0x160 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b8d965>] _nv001338rm+0x1d/0x24 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0bb2eac>] _nv005307rm+0x54/0x544 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c6369b>] _nv001532rm+0x1f/0x28 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c6364c>] _nv001534rm+0x20/0x28 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c63e42>] _nv003621rm+0x1a/0x20 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0cfa708>] _nv000183rm+0x750/0x774 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c6369b>] _nv001532rm+0x1f/0x28 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c63e81>] _nv003619rm+0x19/0x20 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0cb29f3>] _nv003073rm+0x1b/0x30 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0cf912f>] _nv000176rm+0x57/0x3ec [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b8d7da>] _nv001344rm+0x22/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c637db>] _nv001556rm+0x5b/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b8d7da>] _nv001344rm+0x22/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c637db>] _nv001556rm+0x5b/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b8d7da>] _nv001344rm+0x22/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c637db>] _nv001556rm+0x5b/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c637db>] _nv001556rm+0x5b/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0c637db>] _nv001556rm+0x5b/0x6c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0117d1e>] recalc_task_prio+0x8e/0x1b0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0cf912f>] _nv000176rm+0x57/0x3ec [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c03337f4>] kfree_skbmem+0x24/0x30 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c033385a>] __kfree_skb+0x5a/0xc0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c032fc78>] sock_aio_read+0xb8/0xd0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c015142b>] do_sync_read+0x8b/0xc0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b9bfb1>] rm_ioctl+0x19/0x20 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b7ba08>] nv_kern_ioctl+0x4de/0x529 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b9a901>] _nv000865rm+0x3d/0x48 [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<e0b7ba78>] nv_kern_isr+0x25/0x5c [nvidia] Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0151550>] vfs_read+0xf0/0x130 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c0163f13>] sys_ioctl+0xf3/0x2a0 Apr 12 23:16:47 sentinel [<c010941b>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb It seems pretty nvidia related, and I had this rpoblem before, but updating my kernel seems to have brought it back. Does anyone have any idea how to fix this? I suppose if worst comes to worst I can try to revert back to 2.6.2 or 3. Thanks, Malcolm

2 3

RE: [Wlug] Next meeting - topic?
by Martin, Eric April 13, 2004

April 13, 2004

I'm game -----Original Message----- From: Charles R. Anderson [mailto:cra@WPI.EDU] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 5:54 PM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] Next meeting - topic? Who wants to do a PGP Keysigning? It would involve advance preparation from everyone who would like to participate. By now I'd imagine most of you have gotten your feet wet with GnuPG :-) If not, see: http://www.wlug.org/files/pgp-slides/index.html If there is interest, please let me know in the next couple days so I can organize the procedure and send out instructions. _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

1 0

RE: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE
by Martin, Eric April 9, 2004

April 9, 2004

I personally have my firewall configured to drop pings. If they don't know you're there, you aren't a target. Granted it doesn't keep seasoned hackers off your box, but it's one more piece of security. -----Original Message----- From: Josh Huber [mailto:huber@alum.wpi.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:50 AM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE avedis(a)rcn.com writes: > [...] > then could surf, with download speeds up to 1.7M/s. Just curious, is that bytes or bits? (I wasn't aware of verizon offering such a fast link) > I even got my firewall working with the new connection, but two things > seems to have changed. SuSEfirewall2 was set not to accept pings, and > it looks like it's still set that way, but Gibson Research's port > scanning utility can ping me. The other thing is that before, I had to > manually enter commands > (iptables) to drop packets to port 119 to put it into "stealth" mode. > Now, I don't have to do that, as it already appears stealthed. Can > anyone explain either of these phenomena? I'm not sure why you would want to drop all pings. You'll probably find that the default firewalling rules drop some kinds of ICMP packets, but there are some which are useful to keep around. (personally, I think dropping all inbound ICMP is pretty annoying when trying to diagnose network issues...) As for port 119, this appears to be the NNTP (net news) port -- why would you be running a news server I'm not sure :) -- Josh Huber _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

3 5

RE: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE
by Martin, Eric April 9, 2004

April 9, 2004

Please elaborate. I know what a DDoS and DoS are, but smurf/fraggle amplication; now I'm lost. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Sweetser [mailto:fs@WPI.EDU] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:53 AM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:50:18AM -0400, Josh Huber wrote: > "Martin, Eric" <MartinE(a)worc.k12.ma.us> writes: > > > I personally have my firewall configured to drop pings. If they > > don't know you're there, you aren't a target. Granted it doesn't > > keep seasoned hackers off your box, but it's one more piece of > > security. > > I don't buy that argument. Two situations: How about the fact that if you don't, you're open to acting as an unwitting participant in a smurf/fraggle amplification DoS? -- Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu WPI Network Engineer GPG fingerprint = 6174 1257 129E 0D21 D8D4 E8A3 8E39 29E3 E2E8 8CEC _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

1 0

RE: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE
by Martin, Eric April 9, 2004

April 9, 2004

I have 0 visible services, but I still don't want people doing port scans. Why pose a target when I don't have to. There is no reason why anybody should be pinging my house. Therefore, I don't let them. Why would I enable anything to let people see me? Stardard security practice: Only allow what is *needed*, and I don't *need* anybody pinging me. If I do, I'll turn it on. Eric -----Original Message----- From: Josh Huber [mailto:huber@alum.wpi.edu] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:50 AM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE "Martin, Eric" <MartinE(a)worc.k12.ma.us> writes: > I personally have my firewall configured to drop pings. If they don't > know you're there, you aren't a target. Granted it doesn't keep > seasoned hackers off your box, but it's one more piece of security. I don't buy that argument. Two situations: 1) You have no other internet-visible services: * What's the harm in allowing icmp echo? Who cares, unless there happens to be some vulnerable ICMP code in the kernel. I suppose that's a risk I'd be willing to take. :) 2) You have other internet-visible services: * A port scan will reveal you, regardless of ICMP responses. -- Josh Huber _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

1 0

Verizon DSL on SuSE
by avedis＠rcn.com April 9, 2004

April 9, 2004

I got set up yesterday with Verizon DSL. I had to boot into windows to do the account activation, and their tech support walked me through it. Once the connection was up, I added a hub and a second computer (with XP - it's not mine, I swear) opened a browser and began surfing. Setting up DSL on SuSE 8.2 was pretty easy, considering I don't really know what I'm doing. Yast setup for a network card and dsl went smoothly. I only had to make one file edit, to designate eth0 in pppoe.conf, rebooted the computer and then could surf, with download speeds up to 1.7M/s. I even got my firewall working with the new connection, but two things seems to have changed. SuSEfirewall2 was set not to accept pings, and it looks like it's still set that way, but Gibson Research's port scanning utility can ping me. The other thing is that before, I had to manually enter commands (iptables) to drop packets to port 119 to put it into "stealth" mode. Now, I don't have to do that, as it already appears stealthed. Can anyone explain either of these phenomena? Greg

4 4

Re: [Wlug] Verizon DSL on SuSE
by avedis＠rcn.com April 8, 2004

April 8, 2004

Josh Huber wrote: > avedis(a)rcn.com writes: > > >>[...] >>then could surf, with download speeds up to 1.7M/s. > > Just curious, is that bytes or bits? (I wasn't aware of verizon > offering such a fast link)> Bits, I think. Whatever they advertise as supplying 1.5meg down and 128k up. I'm at the bottom of the hill from the phone company, so maybe that helps. I downloaded knoppix (700MB) in a little more than an hour. > > I'm not sure why you would want to drop all pings. You'll probably > find that the default firewalling rules drop some kinds of ICMP > packets, but there are some which are useful to keep > around. (personally, I think dropping all inbound ICMP is pretty > annoying when trying to diagnose network issues...) > I don't know enough to have an answer. How many kinds of ICMP are there? The firewall config file gives three choices - # Allow (or don't) ICMP echo pings on either the firewall or the dmz from # the internet? The internet option is for allowing the DMZ and the internal # network to ping the internet. FW_ALLOW_PING_FW="no" FW_ALLOW_PING_DMZ="no" FW_ALLOW_PING_EXT="no" I understand that the first two determine whether the firewall or the dmz respond to pings from the internet, but I'm not sure what the third option does. I am able to ping out to the internet, even though it's set to 'no', so I don't understand the last comment. > As for port 119, this appears to be the NNTP (net news) port -- why > would you be running a news server I'm not sure :) > Woops. I meant port 113, identd/auth. Thanks, Greg

2 1

RE: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?
by Martin, Eric April 8, 2004

April 8, 2004

That's where I am now. Heck I'll even settle for being able to coax it out of the user, along with processor and RAM info...but some people you can't even get that far. (Yes all my windows are closed, it's Winter!!!) Eric -----Original Message----- From: Bill Smith [mailto:wsmith@chezsmith.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:29 PM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere? On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:06:51 -0400 "Martin, Eric" <MartinE(a)worc.k12.ma.us> wrote: > Here Here!!! Granted I've gotten into a debate with a friend of mine and > have slowly came to the conclusion that not everybody needs to know > *everything* about a computer to work one, but directories and applications > are a good start :) Worst one is when you ask and aol user for their email > addy, and they tell you HappyGoLucky127 (generally you can just assume the > @aol.com) I'll take that.... trying to know the why's and wherefore's of a computer before using one is like trying to know the intimate details of how a car works before driving one. all i ask from a user is that s/he know enough about the system they are using so that if i ask "what OS are you using?", i don't get a blank look. (i've gotten a lot of them, believe me.) -- William Smith wsmith(a)chezsmith.com Fall River, MA _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

1 0

WLUG IRC anywhere?
by Bob George April 7, 2004

April 7, 2004

Just wondering if there's a WLUG IRC channel or similar about? - Bob

7 14

RE: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere?
by Martin, Eric April 7, 2004

April 7, 2004

Here Here!!! Granted I've gotten into a debate with a friend of mine and have slowly came to the conclusion that not everybody needs to know *everything* about a computer to work one, but directories and applications are a good start :) Worst one is when you ask and aol user for their email addy, and they tell you HappyGoLucky127 (generally you can just assume the @aol.com) Eric -----Original Message----- From: orbitz(a)ezabel.com [mailto:orbitz@ezabel.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 10:12 AM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] Re: WLUG IRC anywhere? Having tried to fix many peoples Windows XP installs I find XP very unmanagable. The guts (generally what I need to fix) is so hidden from the user in an attempt to keep up the facade of 'ease of use' it's a PITA to get around just to fix a screwy network connection. How many windows users don't even know what a directory is? I don't call that ease of use, merely keeping them ignorant. It's a sad state of computer use:) On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:51:56 -0400 Bill Smith <wsmith(a)chezsmith.com> wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:43:57 -0400 > Bob George <mailings02(a)ttlexceeded.com> wrote: > > > Hey, at least there's not some kid constantly griping that Windows > > was > > so much easier (what happened to the Phoenix LUG channel - now #plugaz). > > I often find myself sighing at the "Windows is easier" crowd. i want > to educate them to what is available to them, to show them that > "easier" does not necessarily mean "best for the job". Easier might > be just that (easy), but it sometimes means making the wrong choice. > > If a person wants to favor an operating system simply because it's > "easy", then that person deserves all the resulting heartache s/he > gets. often, the person looking for "easy" will think "ease of use" > instead of "ease to get going without immediate worry"... If that > became a major concern instead, I think we would see a decided shift > towards unix variants. Sure, Win* might be easy to USE, but if you > want it networked, there's a bit of know-how and effort involved to > make it SECURE. (that could probably be said for any OS, but it is > more true for Win* than for many others.) > > > A lot of LUG channels are largely idle, but I tend to lurk and > > occasionally there are some gems worth waiting for. > > :) granted. can't argue that one. > > -- > > William Smith wsmith(a)chezsmith.com > Fall River, MA > _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

3 2