Re: panic on sparc64 running 10-beta4

On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 02:50:23PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:01:30AM -0500, Kurt Lidl wrote:
> > I installed a sparc V120 (4GB memory, dual 72GB disks) with the 10-beta4
> > install image today.
> > 
> > Installation went fine.  I rebooted the machine, and then went to get
> > a fresh ports tree, and the machine panic'd:
> > 
> > root_at_host:/usr/ports # portsnap fetch
> > Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 7 mirrors found.
> > Fetching public key from your-org.portsnap.freebsd.org... done.
> > Fetching snapshot tag from your-org.portsnap.freebsd.org... done.
> > Fetching snapshot metadata... done.
> > Fetching snapshot generated at Tue Dec  3 19:06:18 EST 2013:
> > 43b6803c6d94efd5b2e2bc9df0b66a84b75417fa3c1728100% of   69 MB 3225 kBps 
> > 00m22s
> > Extracting snapshot... done.
> > Verifying snapshot integrity... panic: trap: illegal instruction (kernel)
> > cpuid = 0
> > KDB: stack backtrace:
> > #0 0xc08836d4 at trap+0x554
> > Uptime: 6m59s
> > Dumping 4096 MB (4 chunks)
> >    chunk at 0: 1073741824 bytes ... ok
> >    chunk at 0x40000000: 1073741824 bytes ... ok
> >    chunk at 0x80000000: 1073741824 bytes ... ok
> >    chunk at 0xc0000000: 1073741824 bytes ... ok
> > 
> > Dump complete
> > Automatic reboot in 15 seconds - press a key on the console to abort
> > Rebooting...
> > 
> > And then it panic'd again when attempting to run 'savecore'!
> > (I typed a <ctrl-t> after it printed out the line about
> > writing the core file, that's where the "load: 0.72 ..." line
> > came from...)
> 
> Hrm, I don't seem to be able to reproduce this with an installation
> built from sources and also can't remember a commit between BETA3 and
> BETA4 which should be able to cause this. I currently can't test the
> 10-BETA4 install image, though. Was the machine in question running
> FreeBSD before, i. e. is it known good hardware? Did savecore eventually
> succeed on writing out a dump?
> 

FYI, I tried again with a machine installed from the 10.0-RC3 binary
image and couldn't reproduce that problem either.

Marius