From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-01-12 01:24:20
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 bla...@ya... changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |user-mode-linux- | |de...@li... ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-02-09 15:38:21
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-02-09 07:38 PST ------- Could someone please update me with the status of this bug? Are there still problems? I notice that the latest version in portage is based on 2.6.8.1. Would upgrading to a newer version (assuming there are newer releases) help at all? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: Rob L. <ro...@la...> - 2005-02-10 04:42:57
|
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 10:38 am, bug...@ge... wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-02-09 07:38 PST > ------- Could someone please update me with the status of this bug? Are > there still problems? > > I notice that the latest version in portage is based on 2.6.8.1. Would > upgrading to a newer version (assuming there are newer releases) help at > all? I believe it was fixed in 2.6.11-rc3-bk2 or thereabouts, but I personally would prefer to hold off closing it until 2.6.11 actually ships. The UML in 2.6.10 didn't build, 2.6.9 was unusable out of the box, and 2.6.11-rc3 introduced _new_ build breakage on top of what -rc2 had because Linus just doesn't test it. If the UML in 2.6.11-final works, consider the bug resolved. Rob |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-02-10 11:32:50
|
On Thursday 10 February 2005 04:40, Rob Landley wrote: > On Wednesday 09 February 2005 10:38 am, bug...@ge... wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-02-09 07:38 PST > > ------- Could someone please update me with the status of this bug? Are > > there still problems? > > > > I notice that the latest version in portage is based on 2.6.8.1. Would > > upgrading to a newer version (assuming there are newer releases) help at > > all? > > I believe it was fixed in 2.6.11-rc3-bk2 or thereabouts, but I personally > would prefer to hold off closing it until 2.6.11 actually ships. The UML > in 2.6.10 didn't build, 2.6.9 was unusable out of the box, and 2.6.11-rc3 > introduced _new_ build breakage on top of what -rc2 had because Linus just > doesn't test it. > > If the UML in 2.6.11-final works, consider the bug resolved. > > Rob Both 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 are more or less usable out of the box (although I'd not recommend 2.6.10 because various UML fixes were merged just *after* the release). 2.6.9 is unusable on a >=2.6.9 host, however (yes, it's ironic), but 2.6.9-bs is usable in most cases (especially for SKAS mode - you Rob have hit some bug in TT mode, however for people using SKAS mode it's ok. And sadly, most people use SKAS mode, so it's often more stable). About the problem itself, I've already explained everything on bugzilla... and especially, nothing is fixed for TT mode on a NPTL-only Gentoo host, nor I know how to fix that (except by releasing a stable glibc which is built the correct way, i.e. with NPTL in /lib/tls and normal version in /lib - the current ebuild for this is correctly marked unstable). -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |
From: Rob L. <ro...@la...> - 2005-02-10 15:19:12
|
On Thursday 10 February 2005 06:31 am, Blaisorblade wrote: > 2.6.9 is unusable on a >=2.6.9 host, however (yes, it's ironic), but > 2.6.9-bs is usable in most cases (especially for SKAS mode - you Rob have > hit some bug in TT mode, however for people using SKAS mode it's ok. And > sadly, most people use SKAS mode, so it's often more stable). 2.6.9 was unusable on a 2.6.7 kernel as well. (Knoppix 3.6.) And requiring SKAS mode to use uclibc is roughly equivalent to requiring a kernel module in order to work. If I could dictate the host kernel environment people run my stuff under, I wouldn't need UML in the first place. Any idea when SKAS0 might be ready for testing? Rob |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-02-10 15:45:24
|
On Thursday 10 February 2005 15:16, Rob Landley wrote: > On Thursday 10 February 2005 06:31 am, Blaisorblade wrote: > > 2.6.9 is unusable on a >=2.6.9 host, however (yes, it's ironic), but > > 2.6.9-bs is usable in most cases (especially for SKAS mode - you Rob have > > hit some bug in TT mode, however for people using SKAS mode it's ok. And > > sadly, most people use SKAS mode, so it's often more stable). > > 2.6.9 was unusable on a 2.6.7 kernel as well. (Knoppix 3.6.) Hmm... ok, guess in TT mode it could be possible. > And requiring SKAS mode to use uclibc uclibc doesn't allow static linking? It's strange... > is roughly equivalent to requiring a > kernel module in order to work. Ok, are you able to figure out a way to copy the whole binary (+ libs) to the VM file and remap it from the file to arbitrary address spaces? This is why in TT mode UML is statically linked, it's done so that we must not understand where libraries are located and remap them, too. I don't think there is a clean way (other than parsing /proc/self/maps, but that is a horrible kludge). > If I could dictate the host kernel > environment people run my stuff under, I wouldn't need UML in the first > place. > Any idea when SKAS0 might be ready for testing? You can already test it I guess, but probably it's not for production yet. I (Wildly) guess a month could be enough, maybe... however for now you can do some testing in SKAS mode (the setup inside UML is not different). -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |
From: Rob L. <ro...@la...> - 2005-02-11 01:33:56
|
On Thursday 10 February 2005 10:44 am, Blaisorblade wrote: > > And requiring SKAS mode to use uclibc > > uclibc doesn't allow static linking? It's strange... Sorry, meant UML. (I have a cold.) > > is roughly equivalent to requiring a > > kernel module in order to work. > > Ok, are you able to figure out a way to copy the whole binary (+ libs) to > the VM file and remap it from the file to arbitrary address spaces? Not with this cold and without a lot more study of how UML works, but first I want to confirm that you looked at the new 2.6 nonlinear mappings support (mm/fremap.c, sys_remap_file_pages() and friends...) > This is why in TT mode UML is statically linked, it's done so that we must > not understand where libraries are located and remap them, too. I don't > think there is a clean way (other than parsing /proc/self/maps, but that is > a horrible kludge). Is there a post somewhere describing the problem in more detail? > > Any idea when SKAS0 might be ready for testing? > > You can already test it I guess, but probably it's not for production yet. > > I (Wildly) guess a month could be enough, maybe... however for now you can > do some testing in SKAS mode (the setup inside UML is not different). So if I build 2.6.11-rc3-bk? I can fire up SKAS0 mode and run it on an unmodified kernel? If so, I'm happy to test this... (I read Jeff Dike's blog entry on SKAS0, but it didn't really have any implementation details.) Rob |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-02-11 02:34:18
|
Stian, can you please read this and provide some help? The point of interest for you is ***MARKED*** On Friday 11 February 2005 01:31, Rob Landley wrote: > On Thursday 10 February 2005 10:44 am, Blaisorblade wrote: > > > And requiring SKAS mode to use uclibc > > > > uclibc doesn't allow static linking? It's strange... > > Sorry, meant UML. > (I have a cold.) Best wishes for your health... (please, someone translate this to real English :-) ) > > > Any idea when SKAS0 might be ready for testing? > > > > You can already test it I guess, but probably it's not for production > > yet. > > > > I (Wildly) guess a month could be enough, maybe... however for now you > > can do some testing in SKAS mode (the setup inside UML is not different). > > So if I build 2.6.11-rc3-bk? I can fire up SKAS0 mode and run it on an > unmodified kernel? If so, I'm happy to test this... (I read Jeff Dike's > blog entry on SKAS0, but it didn't really have any implementation details.) Well, code already exists. Get the appropriate -mm tree and apply on top of it the "incrementals" tree at http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/patches.html. Give a quick read to the changelogs to get a feeling about what's actually needed and what won't at all compile. I guess that in this moment skas0-ldt is a good point to stop at. > > > is roughly equivalent to requiring a > > > kernel module in order to work. > > Ok, are you able to figure out a way to copy the whole binary (+ libs) to > > the VM file and remap it from the file to arbitrary address spaces? > Not with this cold and without a lot more study of how UML works, Yes, obviously... actually, I also have made some confusion (I actually answered to "why UML in TT mode is built static?", not to the bug in TT mode). ***MARKED*** The bug in TT mode: actually, it happens when and because UML is statically linked, against NPTL glibc. It does not happen on normal distros, which provide a LinuxThreads glibc in /lib and for static linking to be 2.4 compatible; nor in Gentoo with nptl disabled (which was the default when I installed it). The problem, currently, is that there are problems (and linker assertion failures) probably because the linking scripts do not play well with the /usr/lib/libc.a sections. The error, if I recall it correctly, is posted in the comment #6. Linking scripts give instructions about how to merge / order symbols of various sections inside the final binary; more info is provided in the info pages for ld. Uml's linking script are a mix of arch/i386/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S (which contains special kernels definition, used for instance for initcalls) and of the normal linking scripts used to build userspace executables (they are visible in the output of "strings ld", and maybe there is even some special option). To dissect binary and library sections, objdump is also useful (and also the elfutils version of it). Now, I don't understand why that error is born - it guesses wrongly the number of physical headers, and I could describe in detail the physical headers I want (each physical header groups a number of sections with similar mapping requirements). ***MARKED*** Stuff below refers to "Why UML in TT mode is built static?" > but first > I want to confirm that you looked at the new 2.6 nonlinear mappings support > (mm/fremap.c, sys_remap_file_pages() and friends...) Hmm, I know that feature, only I don't understand how it could help *here*... basically, I think everything that you can do through remap_file_pages() can be done through mmap() / munmap() / mremap(), and the advantage is only for performance... and since the mappings in this case are created So, when and if there will be a remap_file_pages where you can also change protections and we'll drop all the mmap() we must create (one mmap for each page is not very nice... in fact with >=256 M of RAM for single process inside UML you must increase the max number of mappings a single process can create). Having 65536 mappings, put together inside a red-black tree, is not nice at all. > > This is why in TT mode UML is statically linked, it's done so that we > > must not understand where libraries are located and remap them, too. I > > don't think there is a clean way (other than parsing /proc/self/maps, but > > that is a horrible kludge). > > Is there a post somewhere describing the problem in more detail? No idea, if it exists, (about why UML is statically linked) it is older than me here (and I follow UML only since 1 year and a half). -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |
From: Rob L. <ro...@la...> - 2005-02-11 03:44:26
|
On Thursday 10 February 2005 09:33 pm, Blaisorblade wrote: > > Sorry, meant UML. > > > > (I have a cold.) > > Best wishes for your health... (please, someone translate this to real > English :-) ) Oh, it's real english. (Or at least it seems so to someone who just burned french toast to charcoal due to being too dizzy to walk down the street to a sandwich shop. I'm not exactly firing on all cylinders at present...) > > So if I build 2.6.11-rc3-bk? I can fire up SKAS0 mode and run it on an > > unmodified kernel? If so, I'm happy to test this... (I read Jeff Dike's > > blog entry on SKAS0, but it didn't really have any implementation > > details.) > > Well, code already exists. Get the appropriate -mm tree and apply on top of > it the "incrementals" tree at > http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/patches.html. > > Give a quick read to the changelogs to get a feeling about what's actually > needed and what won't at all compile. I guess that in this moment skas0-ldt > is a good point to stop at. Cool. "Not tonight, I have a headache", but cool. > Yes, obviously... actually, I also have made some confusion (I actually > answered to "why UML in TT mode is built static?", not to the bug in TT > mode). > > ***MARKED*** > The bug in TT mode: actually, it happens when and because UML is statically > linked, against NPTL glibc. It does not happen on normal distros, which > provide a LinuxThreads glibc in /lib and for static linking to be 2.4 > compatible; nor in Gentoo with nptl disabled (which was the default when I > installed it). > > The problem, currently, is that there are problems (and linker assertion > failures) probably because the linking scripts do not play well with > the /usr/lib/libc.a sections. The error, if I recall it correctly, is > posted in the comment #6. Gee, Red Hat, the distro that brought us gcc 2.96, is now having ld throw assertion failures trying to build UML. It's nice to see tradition maintained... I can't debug this one. I gave up on Fedora when FC2 wouldn't boot on my desktop because the kernel was optimized for a processor more recent than the machine had (brand new Via Samuel 2, basically a Pentium clone with MMX and 3DNow). I was a loyal Red Hat user for years, but Fedora just left me cold. (And the _courage_ they've shown, yanking things like mp3 player support and xpdf... Obviously they're a good ally to stand up for decss someday.) > Stuff below refers to "Why UML in TT mode is built static?" > > > but first > > I want to confirm that you looked at the new 2.6 nonlinear mappings > > support (mm/fremap.c, sys_remap_file_pages() and friends...) > > Hmm, I know that feature, only I don't understand how it could help > *here*... basically, I think everything that you can do through > remap_file_pages() can be done through mmap() / munmap() / mremap(), and > the advantage is only for performance... and since the mappings in this > case are created > > So, when and if there will be a remap_file_pages where you can also change > protections and we'll drop all the mmap() we must create Tried asking on linux-kernel? Rob |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-02-11 03:56:56
|
On Friday 11 February 2005 03:42, Rob Landley wrote: > On Thursday 10 February 2005 09:33 pm, Blaisorblade wrote: > Gee, Red Hat, the distro that brought us gcc 2.96, is now having ld throw > assertion failures trying to build UML. It's nice to see tradition > maintained... No, this one is Gentoo... on Fedora I saw the assertions but things worked anyway. This bug can only show up on Gentoo (non-default config, beyond) and LFS 6 (rumours). -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-02-09 21:58:06
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From bla...@ya... 2005-02-09 13:58 PST ------- Yes, upgrading would partially help. Alternatively, using a non-NPTL glibc is a workaround (but things get slower); using the latest, ~x86 glibc, built without the nptlonly flag, makes sure that UML is linked against a non-NPTL glibc, so this is also a workaround. In short, see my previous message, and note that the previous official source (Jeff Dike) for the portage releases has stopped doing releases, since main work happens onto vanilla kernels (UML has been merged into vanilla Linux, finally). He now only maintains a development tree (http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/patches.html, if you want, but it's for development). Both the 2.6.9-bs6 patchset (which I maintain and is very stable, see at http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade/) and the vanilla 2.6.10 Linux kernel (with a bit of other problems, which are fixed in the upcoming vanilla 2.6.11) have the (partial) fix included: they work if you compile a SKAS-only UML (enable CONFIG_SKAS and disable CONFIG_TT). Everything fails to compile if you have a NPTL glibc in /lib (necessary condition to experience the bug) and UML is statically linked, i.e. you enable also TT mode or explicitly request static linking (which is implied by TT mode). For this configuration, no workaround exists at the moment, nor I know anyone who knows enough about linking scripts and glibc details to fix it. And note that enabling TT mode is required to run UML onto a vanilla Linux kernel as host system; with the SKAS patch on the host it is possible to run a UML built with only SKAS mode enabled and TT mode disabled. * Why wasn't the portage tree not updated (I guess): The reason is that while previously UML was a separate patch to apply to a vanilla tarball, while starting from 2.6.9 UML has been merged in mainline so a vanilla kernel (should) compile. However, a vanilla 2.6.9 kernel tarball contains the whole UML architecture, but has these problems (they were discovered and fixed later). I release (when needed) a patchset (the -bb/-bs one) against vanilla kernels, however, for further UML fixes. "When needed" means that if the mainline release is good, and no important fixes are written, or if my time is short, I don't do a release. Possibly including it inside the portage tree would be good (as usermode-bb-sources, if you want). I both use a Gentoo system and maintain that patchset, so if you want I can help for this. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-02-18 13:05:11
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-02-18 05:05 PST ------- Thanks for the explanation- thats good news. So, when Linux 2.6.11 comes out and gets marked stable in portage, we will effectively be able to drop usermode-sources-2.6 from portage without losing any functionality? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-03-02 15:05:03
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From bla...@ya... 2005-03-02 07:04 PST ------- I hope that, but I'm not sure... actually, both 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 were not Good Enough releases. Well, not that bad (2.6.9 works like a charm on a host < 2.6.9, in most cases); but I feel that in some cases we (UML developers) will still have to do some post-releases little fixes. I've done a lot of them for 2.6.9, I hadn't the time for 2.6.10. http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade is the site to download them from. If you can include -bs7 inside portage (and add the security updates you want to add) I'd be grateful. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-03-02 23:28:08
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-03-02 15:27 PST ------- Perhaps some UML users here could test 2.6.11 (gentoo-dev-sources) and see how they get on. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-03-19 20:54:41
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From ro...@gm... 2005-03-19 12:54 PST ------- overhere the gentoo-source.11-r3 as host and gentoo-source.11-r4 as uml works fine what about a skas-patched-host-kernel? a use-flag for gentoo-sources/usermode-sources? Portage 2.0.51.19 (default-linux/x86/2004.3, gcc-3.3.5, glibc-2.3.4.20041102-r1, 2.6.11-gentoo-r3 i686) ================================================================= System uname: 2.6.11-gentoo-r3 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.80GHz Gentoo Base System version 1.4.16 Python: dev-lang/python-2.3.4-r1 [2.3.4 (#1, Feb 28 2005, 13:40:03)] distcc 2.16 i686-pc-linux-gnu (protocols 1 and 2) (default port 3632) [enabled] ccache version 2.4 [enabled] dev-lang/python: 2.3.4-r1 sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13, 2.59-r6 sys-devel/automake: 1.8.5-r3, 1.4_p6, 1.5, 1.7.9-r1, 1.6.3, 1.9.4 sys-devel/binutils: 2.15.92.0.2-r1 sys-devel/libtool: 1.5.10-r4 virtual/os-headers: 2.4.22-r1 ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" AUTOCLEAN="yes" CFLAGS="-mcpu=pentium4 -O3 -pipe" CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-04-08 18:01:12
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From bla...@ya... 2005-04-08 11:01 PST ------- I'm maintaining some external patches for UML, as "fix after release" a bit like the -stable tree, but for UML only. What about adding it to portage? I can help if needed. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-04-13 15:50:37
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-04-13 08:50 PST ------- If it's as quiet as the -stable tree and the patches are going upstream then I might consider just merging it into gentoo-sources instead. Could you please give me the URL to the patches? I got a little lost on your site. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-04-28 16:27:10
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-04-28 09:26 PST ------- Think I found it. Would this be the latest version? http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade/patches/guest/uml-2.6.11-bs4/ ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-04-30 00:42:18
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-04-29 17:41 PST ------- Added 2.6.11-bs4 to portage under name usermode-sources-2.6.11 - thanks. I'd appreciate it if someone could test it and let me know if it works, I'm not a UML user myself. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-05-08 11:55:42
|
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ds...@ge... changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |UPSTREAM ------- Additional Comments From ds...@ge... 2005-05-08 04:55 PST ------- No bug reports, I assume this is OK. The NPTL compilation issue still exists (I believe?) so closing as UPSTREAM. Hopefully someone will find the time and resources to fix it soon. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: <bug...@ge...> - 2005-06-07 00:58:39
|
Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 Secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277 ------- Additional Comments From bla...@ya... 2005-06-06 17:57 PDT ------- Ok, I hope there is still somebody using UML on a NPTL-only system. The workaround suggested last time was to avoid enabling CONFIG_MODE_TT; now I think I've got over this problem, too. So, when I release 2.6.11.8-bs6 (which will happen very shortly, I hope), I'd like to get some testing from you about this issue. Thanks a lot. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.gentoo.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. |
From: Nix <ni...@es...> - 2005-06-07 14:31:51
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, bug...@ge... gibbered uncontrollably: > Ok, I hope there is still somebody using UML on a NPTL-only system. The > workaround suggested last time was to avoid enabling CONFIG_MODE_TT; now I > think I've got over this problem, too. So, when I release 2.6.11.8-bs6 (which > will happen very shortly, I hope), I'd like to get some testing from you about > this issue. I can give it a try if you like. (That's a MODE_TT build on a system with NPTL headers, right?) -- `It's as bizarre an intrusion as, I don't know, the hobbits coming home to find that the Shire has been taken over by gangsta rappers.' |
From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-06-07 15:29:13
|
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:31, Nix wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, bug...@ge... gibbered uncontrollably: > > Ok, I hope there is still somebody using UML on a NPTL-only system. The > > workaround suggested last time was to avoid enabling CONFIG_MODE_TT; now > > I think I've got over this problem, too. So, when I release 2.6.11.8-bs6 > > (which will happen very shortly, I hope), I'd like to get some testing > > from you about this issue. > > I can give it a try if you like. > > (That's a MODE_TT build on a system with NPTL headers, right?) With NPTL-only glibc, I meant (and I guess you mean too). Just give me the time to actually upload the tree, which I'm doing at the=20 moment, and forgive me if I added anything ruining the compilation while I= =20 was working on x86_64 host. Ok, done... enjoy! =2D-=20 Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!". Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894) http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |
From: Nix <ni...@es...> - 2005-06-07 15:54:44
|
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, bla...@ya... said: > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:31, Nix wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005, bug...@ge... gibbered uncontrollably: >> > Ok, I hope there is still somebody using UML on a NPTL-only system. The >> > workaround suggested last time was to avoid enabling CONFIG_MODE_TT; now >> > I think I've got over this problem, too. So, when I release 2.6.11.8-bs6 >> > (which will happen very shortly, I hope), I'd like to get some testing >> > from you about this issue. >> >> I can give it a try if you like. >> >> (That's a MODE_TT build on a system with NPTL headers, right?) > With NPTL-only glibc, I meant (and I guess you mean too). Well, I've got a dual non-NPTL glibc in /lib and NPTL glibc in /lib/tls, but I can force use of either, and the headers, the dynamic loader, and everything other than the stuff in /lib come from the NPTL glibc build. This is pretty much indistinguishable from a pure-NPTL system unless you force LD_ASSUME_KERNEL, which I'm not. > Just give me the time to actually upload the tree, which I'm doing at the > moment, and forgive me if I added anything ruining the compilation while I > was working on x86_64 host. > > Ok, done... enjoy! This is <http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade/patches/guest/uml-2.6.11.8-bs6/uml-2.6.11.8-bs6.patch.bz2>, right? (It looks like it was uploaded only a few minutes ago in some time zone quite divergent from either of ours. :) ) Building now, atop Linux-2.6.11.10. More in a few minutes when the build completes, in whatever way. -- `It's as bizarre an intrusion as, I don't know, the hobbits coming home to find that the Shire has been taken over by gangsta rappers.' |
From: Nix <ni...@es...> - 2005-06-07 16:02:55
|
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, bla...@ya... said: > Just give me the time to actually upload the tree, which I'm doing at the > moment, and forgive me if I added anything ruining the compilation while I > was working on x86_64 host. Patch mis-rolled, I guess: arch/um/scripts/Makefile.rules is missing, yet included from multiple places: CHK usr/initramfs_list arch/um/kernel/Makefile:34: arch/um/scripts/Makefile.rules: No such file or directory make[1]: *** No rule to make target `arch/um/scripts/Makefile.rules'. Stop. make: *** [arch/um/kernel] Error 2 (I could grab the copy from -bs5, but I don't know if it's changed since then, or even if it's still meant to be there at all. I could check the -broken-out, but I have no guarantee that that isn't equally confused :) ) -- `It's as bizarre an intrusion as, I don't know, the hobbits coming home to find that the Shire has been taken over by gangsta rappers.' |