FedoraForum.org - Fedora Support Forums and Community
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,868

    New Kernel in Fedora 12

    Rahul
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    5,057
    96 worked for /me but there my not be enough bits in rawhide for everything to show improvement.

    Here is the current 97 and some koji bits. Just FYI

    I works very good for Pent IV ht PAE 686.
    Works good with newest xorg-x11-server 1.7.1
    works good with newest xorg-x11-drv-intel
    Speed seems a little better, video is a bit more solid and clear.

    Pent III 800 mx nouveau a bit more clear, still nomodset used, icons still a bit over sized.

    There is 1 or 2 audit avc's on xauth-iugigui type files when su - occurs, but still works.

    dmesg - early on

    dmesg render error detected, EIR: 0x00000010
    [drm:i915_handle_error] *ERROR* EIR stuck: 0x00000010, masking
    render error detected, EIR: 0x00000010
    [drm] DAC-5: set mode 1280x1024 14
    Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 160x64
    fb0: inteldrmfb frame buffer device
    registered panic notifier
    [drm] Initialized i915 1.6.0 20080730 for 0000:00:02.0 on minor 0
    dracut: Starting plymouth daemon

    later on

    [drm:drm_mode_rmfb] *ERROR* tried to remove a fb that we didn't own

    Audit message (a read and a write)

    Summary:

    SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/xauth "write" access on .xauthAtVZkk.

    Detailed Description:

    SELinux denied access requested by xauth. It is not expected that this access is
    required by xauth and this access may signal an intrusion attempt. It is also
    possible that the specific version or configuration of the application is
    causing it to require additional access.

    Allowing Access:

    You can generate a local policy module to allow this access - see FAQ
    (http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/selinu...fc5/#id2961385) Please file a bug
    report.

    Additional Information:

    Source Context unconfined_u:unconfined_r:xauth_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
    Target Context unconfined_u:object_r:admin_home_t:s0
    Target Objects .xauthAtVZkk [ file ]
    Source xauth
    Source Path /usr/bin/xauth
    Port <Unknown>
    Host Ruthie-07.WinProxy
    Source RPM Packages xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2-7.fc12
    Target RPM Packages
    Policy RPM selinux-policy-3.6.32-32.fc12
    Selinux Enabled True
    Policy Type targeted
    MLS Enabled True
    Enforcing Mode Enforcing
    Plugin Name catchall
    Host Name Ruthie-07.WinProxy
    Platform Linux Ruthie-07.WinProxy 2.6.31.5-96.fc12.i686.PAE
    #1 SMP Fri Oct 23 19:39:36 EDT 2009 i686 i686
    Alert Count 1
    First Seen Mon 26 Oct 2009 02:31:50 AM PDT
    Last Seen Mon 26 Oct 2009 02:31:50 AM PDT
    Local ID a86e8e09-c988-4fdf-b09c-964546b04117
    Line Numbers

    Raw Audit Messages

    node=Ruthie-07.WinProxy type=AVC msg=audit(1256549510.253:27736): avc: denied { write } for pid=3086 comm="xauth" name=".xauthAtVZkk" dev=dm-2 ino=4921 scontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:xauth_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 tcontext=unconfined_u:object_r:admin_home_t:s0 tclass=file

    node=Ruthie-07.WinProxy type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1256549510.253:27736): arch=40000003 syscall=33 success=no exit=-13 a0=bf8def27 a1=2 a2=bf8def27 a3=804e88c items=0 ppid=3078 pid=3086 auid=500 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=pts0 ses=1 comm="xauth" exe="/usr/bin/xauth" subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:xauth_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)

    SJ
    # uname -a
    Linux Ruthie-07.WinProxy 2.6.31.5-97.fc12.i686.PAE #1 SMP Mon Oct 26 00:49:45 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
    xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.9.1-1.fc12.i686
    xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.7.1-1.fc12.i686
    Do the Math

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Paris, TX
    Posts
    24,107

    Exclamation Bump!

    Here's where the rubber meets the road, folks. The man is posting pleas for help testing things here.

    You can't say he (or therefore the devs) never asked.








    From here on in, I'll probably take a mighty dim view of the chronic complainers who didn't pony up.


    Dan

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,868
    Hi,

    As always, please report bugs to http://bugzilla.redhat.com directly.
    Rahul
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    582
    Hi. F12 64 bit beta seems more stable than previous incarnations. I was forced to uninstall newest kernel 96 because it failed to show in grub. A new installation corrected the issue. It loads faster than kernel 56 and desktop seems to be performing more smoothly than before, albeit lag is still notable. Sounds are working better than ever. One of my main headaches from past - mail-notification - seems to be more stable than ever.
    My main concern is that I lost synchronization ability between Jpilot and my Tungsten T. Under F10 and F11 64 bit it worked out of the box using ":usb" as connection port. Now it fails to communicate.
    Otherwise and as already said, F12 64 bit looks remarkably stable.
    I will post anything else I find down the road.
    I forgot to mention this is a fresh install.
    Last edited by Boricua; 26th October 2009 at 11:22 PM. Reason: Further info

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    eastern Washington (state) USA
    Posts
    488
    My yum.log shows that it installed the new kernel:

    Code:
    Oct 24 15:24:02 Updated: kernel-firmware-2.6.31.5-96.fc12.noarch
    Oct 24 15:25:19 Installed: kernel-2.6.31.5-96.fc12.x86_64
    But it doesn't show up on my grub, and while it was installing I saw an error message go by, but I didn't note it and now I'm not sure if or where that message might be? I just tried yum upgrade kernel and it said no packages to upgrade.

    Is there a way to re-install it and see what it says? Or is there a log where it might show up? I just checked yumex.conf and it shows yumdebuglevel=2 (I don't know what that means); but nothing about a location of a log?

    Could or should I try to manually add the entries for the vmlinuz and initrd info in a revised grub.conf with the same root uuid as the kernel 2.6.31.1-56.fc12.x86_64, with the new kernel info and see if it boots?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan
    Here's where the rubber meets the road, folks. The man is posting pleas for help testing things here.

    You can't say he (or therefore the devs) never asked.


    From here on in, I'll probably take a mighty dim view of the chronic complainers who didn't pony up.


    Dan
    I was tempted to write something equally inflammatory, but will settle on ...

    Fair enough to ask for testers, but is there any point when you don't react on the bug reports received.

    I can confirm that https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523905 *still* occurs with the latest updates pushed to the repos (including 2.6.31.5-96.fc12.i686.PAE).

  8. #8
    Demz Guest
    they wont fix them cause Fedora isnt there " baby Server " where as Redhat Server is so they fix it in there only while you Guinee pigs help test other technology they will fix in Fedora

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan
    Here's where the rubber meets the road, folks. The man is posting pleas for help testing things here.

    You can't say he (or therefore the devs) never asked.

    From here on in, I'll probably take a mighty dim view of the chronic complainers who didn't pony up.


    Dan
    You are completely right.
    Sorry, I'm not testing it myself. Fedora is 'edgy' enough, can't imagine how much more 'dangerous' rawhide is.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    5,057
    No timmy, computers are not dangerous?
    On the other, that dog of your may end up stealing your bike.

    SJ
    Do the Math

  11. #11
    Demz Guest
    wrong SJ, computers are dangerous man

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    eastern Washington (state) USA
    Posts
    488
    Update to my earlier message, apparently it's a bug in yumex:
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527528

    An extra brain-cell kicked in, and I had the bright idea to un-install then re-install the kernel in yumex, and it came up with the error messages noted in the bugzilla, I decided to search there before posting it here. I just installed the new kernel in a terminal, so far so good -- it booted! I'll play with a few things on it tomorrow, since it's 10pm here and I'm going to call it a night.

    One thing that did come up when I installed it was this:
    Code:
    Running Transaction
      Installing     : kernel-firmware-2.6.31.5-96.fc12.noarch                  1/2 
      Installing     : kernel-2.6.31.5-96.fc12.x86_64                           2/2 
    W: Possible missing firmware ql8100_fw.bin for module qla2xxx.ko
    W: Possible missing firmware ql2400_fw.bin for module qla2xxx.ko
    W: Possible missing firmware ql2322_fw.bin for module qla2xxx.ko
    W: Possible missing firmware ql2300_fw.bin for module qla2xxx.ko
    W: Possible missing firmware ql2200_fw.bin for module qla2xxx.ko
    W: Possible missing firmware ql2100_fw.bin for module qla2xxx.ko
    W: Possible missing firmware aic94xx-seq.fw for module aic94xx.ko
    
    Installed:
      kernel.x86_64 0:2.6.31.5-96.fc12
    In case it matters. If it's an item for bugzilla, let me know.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Manorville, New York, USA
    Posts
    1,677
    My 32 bit PAE kernel installed just fine, except that I also had possible missing firmware modules. But I was missing only 2. Don't remember which ones, sorry. Went on to go through as many apps as I could to test what I could and had no problems. Everything that was set up previously is still working as it was before.
    If there is a specific list of things to try, I'd be more than happy to take my testing further.
    I'm waiting for the akmods for nvidia drivers, I don't really want to clean up what the .run files install from the nvidia site. Besides, seeing what nouveau can do before installing the proprietary drivers is interesting also. Nouveau, btw, seems to be more stable than it was before, i.e., weird graphics on startup are gone, and transitions don't flicker and are smooth.
    Registered Linux User #348347
    Have you been seduced by siduction? http://siduction.org/index.php
    Running Fedora 19/20, siduction and openSUSE 13.1 with KDE

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    4,328
    please, for my sanity, when reporting problems that may be related to package installation please make it clear if you're using yumex, so I don't start panicking.

    typerlc: you can't claim we didn't *respond* to your report. I triaged it, and Ben has looked at it and is working on fixing it. The fact we didn't fix it the next day proves only that we are human. My favourite way to explain the more general issue here is that, while it's true we may manage to fix only, say, 50% of reported bugs within a few months, that's a lot better than the percentage of *un*reported bugs we fix. It's not practical to promise perfection, so you'll note I never do. But we really do need the reports to know what's broken and, believe it or not, we do consider them important. You can take a look at the thrilling log of the seven hour long release blocker bug review from Friday if you want reassurance!

    demz, if Red Hat wasn't interested in improving the quality of Fedora, they wouldn't be paying me to be a member of Red Hat's Fedora QA team, would they? In fact, Red Hat wouldn't *have* a Fedora QA team. Never mind all those people who work on Fedora who aren't Red Hat employees. Red Hat does not spend its time encouraging those people not to fix bugs in Fedora as part of its evil plot to make sure only Red Hat is worth using...
    Adam Williamson | awilliam AT redhat DOT com
    Fedora QA Community Monkey
    IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
    http://www.happyassassin.net

  15. #15
    leigh123linux Guest
    The latest kernels seems quicker, I don't bother reporting any kernel bugs as they always tell me to remove the Nvidia driver first ( They can stuff it ).

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2nd November 2008, 03:11 PM
  2. Unable to install a upgraded kernel from kernel.org under fedora installation
    By srinivasbakki in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 7th January 2008, 02:11 PM
  3. 8K Stack kernel and kernel-devel RPMS for Fedora 7 (for ndiswrapper drivers)
    By sideways in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 6th June 2007, 05:39 PM
  4. help... kernel panic! Error after compiling kernel 2.6.11.6/Fedora 3
    By {2Nd+BESt} in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2nd April 2005, 12:00 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •