From: Jesus M. S. Jr. <jes...@mi...> - 2004-04-19 08:07:00
|
I got the following when running UML 2.4.18-15 kernel from within Fedora Core 1: tracing thread pid = 3179 Linux version 2.4.18-15um (jd...@um...) (gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-81)) #2 Mon Apr 8 09:27:27 EDT 2002 On node 0 totalpages: 8192 zone(0): 0 pages. zone(1): 8192 pages. zone(2): 0 pages. Kernel command line: ubd0=root_fs.rh-7.2-full.pristine.20020312 root=/dev/ubd0 Calibrating delay loop... 1192.66 BogoMIPS Memory: 32244k available Dentry-cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 3, 32768 bytes) Inode-cache hash table entries: 2048 (order: 2, 16384 bytes) Mount-cache hash table entries: 512 (order: 0, 4096 bytes) Buffer-cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 0, 4096 bytes) Page-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 3, 32768 bytes) Checking for host processor cmov support...Yes Checking for host processor xmm support...No Checking that ptrace can change system call numbers...OK Checking that host ptys support output SIGIO...Yes POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4 Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039 Initializing RT netlink socket Kernel panic: outer trampoline didn't exit with SIGKILL Now according to the FAQ, it says: This panic happens with old UMLs running on RH9. This became a FAQ when lots of people started installing RH9. It's a UML bug which was fixed in the 2.4.20-4 patch. Any version of UML since then boots fine on RH9. How can I build a UML kernel 2.4.18-5 or -10 with the mentioned patch ? I specifically need to run 2.4.18-5 or 2.4.18-10, because I need to run CheckPoint SecureRemote. CheckPoint has a kernel module that will only work the following kernel versions( taken from their docs ): RedHat Linux version 7.2 & 7.3, kernel versions 2.4.9-7, 2.4.9-33, 2.4.18-5 and 2.4.18-10. Thus, I need to run a 2.4.18-5 or 2.4.18-10 UML kernel with a RH 7.2 root filesytem ... with the host OS being Fedora Core 1. Regards, John |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ad...> - 2004-04-19 18:12:53
|
jes...@mi... said: > Thus, I need to run a 2.4.18-5 or 2.4.18-10 UML kernel with a RH 7.2 > root filesytem You're totally barking up the wrong tree because I have never UML-ized vendor kernels, just the stock kernel.org ones Binary i386 modules are absolutely totally guaranteed not to work in UML Jeff |
From: Jesus M. S. Jr. <jes...@mi...> - 2004-04-19 23:41:18
|
Jeff Dike wrote: >jes...@mi... said: > > >>Thus, I need to run a 2.4.18-5 or 2.4.18-10 UML kernel with a RH 7.2 >>root filesytem >> >> > >You're totally barking up the wrong tree because > I have never UML-ized vendor kernels, just the stock kernel.org ones > Binary i386 modules are absolutely totally guaranteed not to work in UML > > Jeff > > Yes, the CheckPoint SecureRemote client most likely require a RH kernel. ( Another question though is, where does UML gets its full version number ? e.g.: 2.4.18-15um ... how does UML assign "-15um" ? ) In any case, I wanted to try to use the stock kernels from kernel.org ( 2.4.18 ) and then need to apply the UML patch for 2.4.20-4 on to the 2.4.18 stock kernel ... to be able to boot a 2.4.18 UML kernel from within Fedora. John |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ad...> - 2004-04-21 17:57:58
|
jes...@mi... said: > ( Another question though is, where does UML gets its full version > number ? e.g.: 2.4.18-15um ... how does UML assign "-15um" ? ) From me. I start at 1, and whenever I release a new patch for a given stock kernel, it gets bumped. Those numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with RH (or anyone else's) version numbers, which I tried to make clear by sticking on the 'um'. Jeff |
From: Jesus M. S. Jr. <jes...@mi...> - 2004-04-22 01:00:32
|
Jeff Dike wrote: >jes...@mi... said: > > >>( Another question though is, where does UML gets its full version >>number ? e.g.: 2.4.18-15um ... how does UML assign "-15um" ? ) >> >> > >>From me. I start at 1, and whenever I release a new patch for a given stock >kernel, it gets bumped. Those numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with >RH (or anyone else's) version numbers, which I tried to make clear by sticking >on the 'um'. > > Thanks for the info. So is that part of the UML patch for 2.4.20-4 ... the one that allows UML kernels to run on RH9 and Fedora hosts ... cannot be applied to 2.4.18 kernels ? |
From: Nuno S. <nun...@vg...> - 2004-04-22 01:36:23
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi! Jesus M. Salvo Jr. wrote: [..] | So is that part of the UML patch for 2.4.20-4 ... the one that allows | UML kernels to run on RH9 and Fedora hosts ... cannot be applied to | 2.4.18 kernels ? | | Yes. But nobody did it, yet. You're welcome to do it. Anyway, even if you manage to make a 2.4.18 kernel from redhat compile (and work) with recent UML patches, binary modules built for x86 will not work with another arch (in this case UML) for sure. Regards, Nuno Silva -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAhyGLOPig54MP17wRAi6iAKC99Of/EyTmNFf81bSBcP1oY78LPACfXdQm aDlJAmygh/IeSwlZhmHC68E= =P5xY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |