error on sudo parted -l

Bug #1235525 reported by Phill Whiteside
16
This bug affects 3 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
linux (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Medium
Unassigned
Raring
Invalid
Medium
Unassigned
Saucy
Invalid
Medium
Unassigned

Bug Description

In the current kernel issuing such a command results in the following output:

Error: /dev/zram0: unrecognised disk label

Error: /dev/zram1: unrecognised disk label

This bug will be tied to the raring kernel which also sees it.

The 3.12rc1 and 3.12rc2 kernel does not show this behaviour. Please look also at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1227202 for back ground information for this bug. It does not appear to be critical and this bug was found when investigating the crash / freeze issue.

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 13.10
Package: linux-image-3.11.0-11-generic 3.11.0-11.17
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.11.0-11.17-generic 3.11.3
Uname: Linux 3.11.0-11-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.12.5-0ubuntu1
Architecture: amd64
AudioDevicesInUse:
 USER PID ACCESS COMMAND
 /dev/snd/controlC0: phillw 2140 F.... lxpanel
CRDA: Error: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'iw'
Date: Sat Oct 5 01:28:16 2013
HibernationDevice: RESUME=UUID=d98ac0ad-5c96-4382-8195-23b44e056358
InstallationDate: Installed on 2013-06-29 (97 days ago)
InstallationMedia: Lubuntu 13.10 "Saucy Salamander" - Alpha amd64 (20130628)
MachineType: Packard Bell EasyNote LJ71
MarkForUpload: True
ProcFB: 0 radeondrmfb
ProcKernelCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-3.11.0-11-generic root=UUID=69c7aa0f-ccd0-4ac4-8930-e6f0efda9e6b ro quiet splash vt.handoff=7
RelatedPackageVersions:
 linux-restricted-modules-3.11.0-11-generic N/A
 linux-backports-modules-3.11.0-11-generic N/A
 linux-firmware 1.116
SourcePackage: linux
StagingDrivers: zram
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
dmi.bios.date: 09/22/2009
dmi.bios.vendor: Packard Bell
dmi.bios.version: V1.03
dmi.board.asset.tag: Base Board Asset Tag
dmi.board.name: EasyNote LJ71
dmi.board.vendor: Packard Bell
dmi.board.version: V1.03
dmi.chassis.type: 10
dmi.chassis.vendor: Packard Bell
dmi.chassis.version: V1.03
dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnPackardBell:bvrV1.03:bd09/22/2009:svnPackardBell:pnEasyNoteLJ71:pvrV1.03:rvnPackardBell:rnEasyNoteLJ71:rvrV1.03:cvnPackardBell:ct10:cvrV1.03:
dmi.product.name: EasyNote LJ71
dmi.product.version: V1.03
dmi.sys.vendor: Packard Bell

Revision history for this message
Phill Whiteside (phillw) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Brad Figg (brad-figg) wrote : Status changed to Confirmed

This change was made by a bot.

Changed in linux (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Lars Noodén (larsnooden) wrote :

I'm seeing this as well

$ uname -a
Linux lubuntu 3.11.0-11-generic #17-Ubuntu SMP Tue Oct 1 19:42:04 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Revision history for this message
amjjawad  (amjjawad) wrote :

$ sudo parted -l
Model: ATA MAXTOR 6L040J2 (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 40.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos

Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
 1 32.3kB 9665MB 9665MB primary ext4 boot
 2 9665MB 10.7GB 1078MB primary linux-swap(v1)
 3 10.7GB 20.4GB 9664MB primary ext4
 4 20.4GB 26.8GB 6442MB extended
 5 20.4GB 26.8GB 6442MB logical ext4

Error: /dev/zram0: unrecognised disk label

Error: /dev/zram1: unrecognised disk label

$ uname -a
Linux saucy-desktop 3.11.0-9-generic #16-Ubuntu SMP Fri Sep 27 15:08:11 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Changed in linux (Ubuntu Raring):
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Medium
Changed in linux (Ubuntu Saucy):
importance: Undecided → Medium
tags: added: kernel-fixed-upstream
Revision history for this message
Joseph Salisbury (jsalisbury) wrote :

Thanks for reporting this bug. It's good to know that this is already fixed in the 3.12 kernel. We can perform a "Reverse" kernel bisect to identify the commit that fixes this in 3.12 and then request it be included in the stable releases(3.11, 3.8).

It would first be good to know if the fix was already sent to stable and is in the latest upstream 3.11 kernel. Can you test this kernel to see if it still exhibits the bug:

http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/v3.11.4-saucy/

tags: added: kernel-bug-fixed-upstream kernel-da-key
removed: kernel-fixed-upstream
Revision history for this message
Phill Whiteside (phillw) wrote :

Hi Joe,

phillw@piglet:~$ uname -a
Linux piglet 3.11.4-031104-generic #201310051136 SMP Sat Oct 5 15:38:11 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

phillw@piglet:~$ swapon -s
Filename Type Size Used Priority
/dev/sda6 partition 4176832 0 -1
/dev/sdb2 partition 4095996 0 -2
phillw@piglet:~$ ps -ef | grep zram
phillw 2802 2324 0 17:55 pts/2 00:00:00 grep --color=auto zram

the sudo parted -l does not report any errors pertaining to zram, but his could well be because there is no sign on zram running. This is the new kernel on my existing hardware installation of 13.10 Lubuntu which was running config-3.11.0-11-generic

Phill.

Revision history for this message
Phill Whiteside (phillw) wrote :

ignore the ps -ef, it is a red herring!

Revision history for this message
Joseph Salisbury (jsalisbury) wrote :

That may be possible. That 3.11.4 kernel is using the standard Saucy config file. How do you go about testing the 3.12 mainline kernel to know it does not exhibit the bug? Is there a lubuntu ISO pre-built with this kernel?

Revision history for this message
Phill Whiteside (phillw) wrote :

zram is called by an upstart job in lubuntu. I'll re-check to see if zram swap is enabled with the 3.12 kernel, but it will be tomorrow.

Regards,
Phill.

Revision history for this message
Phill Whiteside (phillw) wrote :

It seems I made a mess of installing the 3.11.4 kernel... It now seems to support zram.. I also re-installed the 3.12.rc1 kernel. both show the parted -l error. Details below:

phillw@piglet:~$ uname -a
Linux piglet 3.11.4-031104-generic #201310051136 SMP Sat Oct 5 15:38:11 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
phillw@piglet:~$ swapon -s
Filename Type Size Used Priority
/dev/sda6 partition 4176832 0 -1
/dev/sdb2 partition 4095996 0 -2
/dev/zram0 partition 946728 0 5
/dev/zram1 partition 946728 0 5

sudo parted -l reports

Error: /dev/zram0: unrecognised disk label

Error: /dev/zram1: unrecognised disk label

phillw@piglet:~$ uname -a
Linux piglet 3.12.0-031200rc1-generic #201309161735 SMP Mon Sep 16 21:38:21 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
phillw@piglet:~$ swapon -s
Filename Type Size Used Priority
/dev/sda6 partition 4176832 0 -1
/dev/sdb2 partition 4095996 0 -2
/dev/zram0 partition 946672 0 5
/dev/zram1 partition 946672 0 5

sudo parted -l reports

Error: /dev/zram0: unrecognised disk label

Error: /dev/zram1: unrecognised disk label

Revision history for this message
Phill Whiteside (phillw) wrote :

Joe, I've just had a thought.... as zram is actually a compressed area of RAM and not a physical device, why would we expect parted to recognise what is going on? As far as I can read, it is actually reporting things entirely correctly.

parted is a disk partitioning and partition resizing program. It
       allows you to create, destroy, resize, move and copy ext2, linux-swap,
       FAT, FAT32, and reiserfs partitions. It can create, resize, and move
       Macintosh HFS partitions, as well as detect jfs, ntfs, ufs, and xfs
       partitions. It is useful for creating space for new operating systems,
       reorganising disk usage, and copying data to new hard disks.

Your thoughts on the matter?

Revision history for this message
Mélodie (meets) wrote :

Hi,

I agree with phillw. This message from parted listing option will show in any GNU/Linux distribution, with any kernel when zram is loaded and working, because it's not a logical volume, it is a block device which acts as swap. See the description at the page of the project:
http://code.google.com/p/compcache

In Archlinux the result is of course the same, you can see here:
http://pastebin.fr/29038

This is not a bug.

Regards,
Mélodie

Changed in linux (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Incomplete
Changed in linux (Ubuntu Raring):
status: Confirmed → Incomplete
Changed in linux (Ubuntu Saucy):
status: Confirmed → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Phill Whiteside (phillw) wrote :

Hi Joe,

IMHO this can be marked as invalid. It was just a FUD created when hunting down the actual issue (which has been wonderfully solved thanks to your patience).

Revision history for this message
Joseph Salisbury (jsalisbury) wrote :

Thanks for the update, Phill

Changed in linux (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → Invalid
Changed in linux (Ubuntu Raring):
status: Incomplete → Invalid
Changed in linux (Ubuntu Saucy):
status: Incomplete → Invalid
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.