> Which patch should I take at the best if I just want to use SKAS
> and the bugfixes (dor example, there is a patch that tells me that
> isn't needed any more).
Yes, the readme is probably more for developers and experienced users than for
end users. However, what you need to download is the Combo (the number 4,
since the previous ones were broken) and the A-04... patch. While answering
to you, I added this explaination to that URL.
Apply the combo patch, configure the kernel for UML (enable /proc/mm; if this
gives problem, disable it and retry, but this shouldn't happen). Then build
After that, if you want to compile a 2.6 host kernel with the SKAS patch,
revert the A-04 patch:
patch -p1 -R < A-04-MM-compile-fix.patch
(note the -R: this "unapplies" a patch. This one is included in the combo, but
should be disabled for the host kernel).
Now configure the kernel(without ARCH=um, this is an host kernel), enable
/proc/mm under "Processor type and features" menu, and build it.
> And what exactly is "vanilla"?
When you have a kernel from kernel.org, without any patches applied, that is
called a vanilla kernel.
> And: If I apply the patch, shall I do a make mrproper? Or a make clean?
> Or something else?
With 2.4 you must do a make clean; with 2.6 you shouldn't need it.
> And adds the patch an option to make
For the host, only the /proc/mm one(i.e. the host-skas support).
> I tried to apply 00-Combo-3.patch.bz2. The patch command itself worked
> errors but when I compiled, every driver complained about a missing
> value somewhere in a header (I think it was mem.h or similar).
> Finally there was a compiling error at the module of an SCSI device
Hmmm... err.... that patch was a lot bogus. Sorry for this... it's my fault (I
hadn't had the time to test that in the 4 configurations where it must work :
for i386 and UML, with and without /proc/mm). The number 4 combo is tested,
As a general rule: if you have a compile error, post the exact text.
I was answering to another thread and I noticed you posted it, too. So I put
the answer here:
> However, I read that hostfs is incompatible with kernel 2.6
Are you sure? I don't think so.
> 4.) Is the SKAS mode integrated in kernel 2.6.0 stable?
??? In the official 2.6.0, there is not SKAS support. I can't guarantee that
my patches are "production-ready".
> If not, which patch shall I take? My host system is a "productive"
> system where I do not want to have unstable software.
If you have a production system, you shouldn't run on it 2.6.0. It is called
stable, but no kernel developer would say "it's production ready". Rather, it
has been released so "people will test it and send us bug reports".
Also, some security related bug fixes have been applied to 2.4 but not to 2.6.
Read something from lwn.net or kerneltrap.org if you still think 2.6.0 is
stable. However, it's far more stable than 2.4.n where n is <16 .
> Is the
> patch unstable? What's happening when I apply "an official" patch
> from http://www.kernel.org to my host sources? Does this work?
I don't understand your question. If you use patches from kernel.org to update
to a new version(i.e. patch-2.4/6.NN.bz2), they are ok. If you find other
patches at kernel.org while browsing the FTP, they can be stable, unstable or
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux Kernel 2.4.21/2.6.0-test on an i686; Linux registered user n. 292729