efox.net> <8f45e04a-374b-47dc-9148-78779e44c398@yahoo.com> <3d7be1ec-b5c4-4764-ba86-dea46dd796d5@yahoo.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Mark Millard In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.24866 mail.backend.jedi.jws.acl:role.jedi.acl.token.atz.jws.hermes.yahoo X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36647, ipnet:98.137.64.0/20, country:US] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4dnvgB6lskz3Wpq On 1/9/26 10:20, bob prohaska wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 09:44:57PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: >> On 1/8/26 20:05, Mark Millard wrote: >>> On 1/8/26 17:05, bob prohaska wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 10:10:25AM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: >>>> >>>> [snippage of erroneous panic description] >>>>> >>>>> So: it boots fine but fails to shutdown completely before failing to start >>>>> the boot. >>>>> >>>> Ahh, that clears up much confusion. >> >> Your shutdown related panic information is interesting. For example, >> note the examples of "=deadc0de" in: >> >> QUOTE >> Fatal kernel mode data abort: 'Translation Fault (L1)' on read >> trapframe: 0xd3ab4b28 >> FSR=00000005, FAR=deadc0de, spsr=60000013 >> r0 =0000003d, r1 =1c5f0c0c, r2 =1c5f0c0c, r3 =00000000 >> r4 =d742df00, r5 =00000000, r6 =deadc0de, r7 =deadc0de >> r8 =d7434080, r9 =c091e518, r10=00000000, r11=d3ab4bd8 >> r12=d3ab4adc, ssp=d3ab4bb8, slr=c01b3a80, pc =c00d587c >> . . . (more such are persent) . . . >> exception_exit() at exception_exit >> . . . >> r6 = 0xdeadc0de r7 = 0xdeadc0de >> END QUOTE >> >> looks to me like a "ldr r2, [r6]" could be the first use of the >> deadc0de (happening to be via r6) adn what is leading to the: >> >> 'Translation Fault (L1)' on read >> >> I do not know what lead to the deadc0de values. > > Spelling out "deadc0de" in hex seems odd. Is it a > variety of intentional placekeeper, or maybe an > easter egg of some sort? > > Regarding the "sort of panic" you asked about earlier, > I simply meant to say that the newest kernel behaved > the same as the previous one, i.e., it wasn't an improvement. > > There already a report of panic on shutdown for amd64, > would something like this warrant a separate bug report, or maybe > a comment to the existing one? It's at > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=291294 > To my eye it looks unrelated. The call chain in the backtrace in your original report is very different than the one shown in buzilla 291294 (see above url). So separate bugzilla reports looks to be what is appropriate. > > Thanks for writing! > > bob prohaska > > -- === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com