Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-02 13:29:08
|
I started a fresh compile last night. Updated CVS & source, new LFS, mrproper, and it aborted in prepare: /data/build/tmp/LOGS/build/prepare: applying patch: /data/build/tmp/kernel-patches-2.4/IMQ-01-kernel-2.4.22-through-to-2.4.25-pre6.diff patching file Documentation/Configure.help ... patching file include/linux/sysctl.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 128. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/sysctl.h.rej patching file kernel/sysctl.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 128 (offset 1 line). ... - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-02 15:18:11
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >I started a fresh compile last night. Updated CVS & source, new LFS, >mrproper, and it aborted in prepare: > >/data/build/tmp/LOGS/build/prepare: > >applying patch: /data/build/tmp/kernel-patches-2.4/IMQ-01-kernel-2.4.22-through-to-2.4.25-pre6.diff >patching file Documentation/Configure.help >... >patching file include/linux/sysctl.h >Hunk #1 FAILED at 128. >1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/sysctl.h.rej >patching file kernel/sysctl.c >Hunk #1 succeeded at 128 (offset 1 line). >... > > I did this a couple times lately and it worked fine.... You're using 1.3, correct? Heiko |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-02 17:42:23
|
> >I started a fresh compile last night. Updated CVS & source, new LFS, > >mrproper, and it aborted in prepare: > > > >/data/build/tmp/LOGS/build/prepare: > > > >applying patch: /data/build/tmp/kernel-patches-2.4/IMQ-01-kernel-2.4.22-through-to-2.4.25-pre6.diff > >patching file Documentation/Configure.help > >... > >patching file include/linux/sysctl.h > >Hunk #1 FAILED at 128. > >1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/sysctl.h.rej > >patching file kernel/sysctl.c > >Hunk #1 succeeded at 128 (offset 1 line). > >... > > I did this a couple times lately and it worked fine.... > You're using 1.3, correct? Yes, 1.3. I just did a new LFS, mrproper, and it aborted again in the same place. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-02 18:03:27
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>I started a fresh compile last night. Updated CVS & source, new LFS, >>>mrproper, and it aborted in prepare: >>> >>>/data/build/tmp/LOGS/build/prepare: >>> >>>applying patch: /data/build/tmp/kernel-patches-2.4/IMQ-01-kernel-2.4.22-through-to-2.4.25-pre6.diff >>>patching file Documentation/Configure.help >>>... >>>patching file include/linux/sysctl.h >>>Hunk #1 FAILED at 128. >>>1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/sysctl.h.rej >>>patching file kernel/sysctl.c >>>Hunk #1 succeeded at 128 (offset 1 line). >>>... >>> >>> >>I did this a couple times lately and it worked fine.... >>You're using 1.3, correct? >> >> > >Yes, 1.3. I just did a new LFS, mrproper, and it aborted again in the >same place. > > OK, I'll try to reproduce the problem. cu Heiko |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-02 18:41:53
|
> >>>I started a fresh compile last night. Updated CVS & source, new LFS, > >>>mrproper, and it aborted in prepare: > >>> > >>>/data/build/tmp/LOGS/build/prepare: > >>> > >>>applying patch: /data/build/tmp/kernel-patches-2.4/IMQ-01-kernel-2.4.22-through-to-2.4.25-pre6.diff > >>>patching file Documentation/Configure.help > >>>... > >>>patching file include/linux/sysctl.h > >>>Hunk #1 FAILED at 128. > >>>1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/sysctl.h.rej > >>>patching file kernel/sysctl.c > >>>Hunk #1 succeeded at 128 (offset 1 line). > >>>... > >>> > >>> > >>I did this a couple times lately and it worked fine.... > >>You're using 1.3, correct? > >> > >> > > > >Yes, 1.3. I just did a new LFS, mrproper, and it aborted again in the > >same place. > > > > > OK, I'll try to reproduce the problem. FWIW, the problem seems to be in: linux-2.4.26-i2c-2.8.4.patch - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-02 18:50:50
Attachments:
.config
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>>>I started a fresh compile last night. Updated CVS & source, new LFS, >>>>>mrproper, and it aborted in prepare: >>>>> >>>>>/data/build/tmp/LOGS/build/prepare: >>>>> >>>>>applying patch: /data/build/tmp/kernel-patches-2.4/IMQ-01-kernel-2.4.22-through-to-2.4.25-pre6.diff >>>>>patching file Documentation/Configure.help >>>>>... >>>>>patching file include/linux/sysctl.h >>>>>Hunk #1 FAILED at 128. >>>>>1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/sysctl.h.rej >>>>>patching file kernel/sysctl.c >>>>>Hunk #1 succeeded at 128 (offset 1 line). >>>>>... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I did this a couple times lately and it worked fine.... >>>>You're using 1.3, correct? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Yes, 1.3. I just did a new LFS, mrproper, and it aborted again in the >>>same place. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>OK, I'll try to reproduce the problem. >> >> > >FWIW, the problem seems to be in: linux-2.4.26-i2c-2.8.4.patch > > It applied just fine.... I attached my config file. cu Heiko |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-02 18:57:59
|
> >>OK, I'll try to reproduce the problem. > > > >FWIW, the problem seems to be in: linux-2.4.26-i2c-2.8.4.patch > > It applied just fine.... After some more looking, I think the problem is in the PAX patch. src/pax-linux-2.4.26-200404151725.patch.bz2 I'll know in a few minutes since I just turned off PAX ... BTW, the prepare build process could use a few more echos to make it easier to tell where it blows up. :) - BS |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-02 19:16:08
|
> > >>OK, I'll try to reproduce the problem. > > > > > >FWIW, the problem seems to be in: linux-2.4.26-i2c-2.8.4.patch > > > > It applied just fine.... > > After some more looking, I think the problem is in the PAX patch. > src/pax-linux-2.4.26-200404151725.patch.bz2 > > I'll know in a few minutes since I just turned off PAX ... > > BTW, the prepare build process could use a few more echos to make it > easier to tell where it blows up. :) Yup, turning off PAX "fixed" the problem ... - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-02 20:05:11
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>>>OK, I'll try to reproduce the problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>FWIW, the problem seems to be in: linux-2.4.26-i2c-2.8.4.patch >>>> >>>> >>>It applied just fine.... >>> >>> >>After some more looking, I think the problem is in the PAX patch. >>src/pax-linux-2.4.26-200404151725.patch.bz2 >> >>I'll know in a few minutes since I just turned off PAX ... >> >>BTW, the prepare build process could use a few more echos to make it >>easier to tell where it blows up. :) >> >> > >Yup, turning off PAX "fixed" the problem ... > > I just checked http://pax.grsecurity.net/ and there's still no patch for 2.4.27 available. You may want to contact the author. Heiko |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-02 20:22:55
|
> >Yup, turning off PAX "fixed" the problem ... > > I just checked http://pax.grsecurity.net/ and there's still no patch for > 2.4.27 available. > You may want to contact the author. How long as 2.4.27 been out? I hate to be a nag too soon. - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-02 20:25:57
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>Yup, turning off PAX "fixed" the problem ... >>> >>> >> >>I just checked http://pax.grsecurity.net/ and there's still no patch for >>2.4.27 available. >>You may want to contact the author. >> >> > >How long as 2.4.27 been out? I hate to be a nag too soon. > > 3 weeks or so Heiko |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-02 20:40:55
|
> >>I just checked http://pax.grsecurity.net/ and there's still no patch for > >>2.4.27 available. > >>You may want to contact the author. > > > >How long as 2.4.27 been out? I hate to be a nag too soon. > > 3 weeks or so I see the website has a later 2.4.26 patch that what we are using. That might be worth a try. Also, I never looked at the pax page before, and it says "you'll need the binutils patch and paxctl to make use of it". I don't see where we have either, so the PAX patch isn't doing us any good anyway? - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-02 20:03:55
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>>OK, I'll try to reproduce the problem. >>>> >>>> >>>FWIW, the problem seems to be in: linux-2.4.26-i2c-2.8.4.patch >>> >>> >>It applied just fine.... >> >> > >After some more looking, I think the problem is in the PAX patch. >src/pax-linux-2.4.26-200404151725.patch.bz2 > >I'll know in a few minutes since I just turned off PAX ... > >BTW, the prepare build process could use a few more echos to make it >easier to tell where it blows up. :) > > You got CVS write access..... ;-) Heiko |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-02 20:21:03
|
> >BTW, the prepare build process could use a few more echos to make it > >easier to tell where it blows up. :) > > You got CVS write access..... ;-) Oh yeah ... :-) (done) - BS |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2004-09-02 20:52:02
|
Bruce Smith wrote: >>>>I just checked http://pax.grsecurity.net/ and there's still no patch for >>>>2.4.27 available. >>>>You may want to contact the author. >>>> >>>> >>>How long as 2.4.27 been out? I hate to be a nag too soon. >>> >>> >>3 weeks or so >> >> > >I see the website has a later 2.4.26 patch that what we are using. >That might be worth a try. > >Also, I never looked at the pax page before, and it says >"you'll need the binutils patch and paxctl to make use of it". > >I don't see where we have either, so the PAX patch isn't doing us any >good anyway? > > We're still using the old ET_DYN method, so we should be good. I'm currently preparing to go with the newer 'pie' solution, but for that we need the new glibc, for that we need a new lfssystem and when we do that we can also switch to nptl, ..... Heiko |
|
From: Bruce S. <bw...@ar...> - 2004-09-06 03:24:31
|
> >>>>I just checked http://pax.grsecurity.net/ and there's still no patch for > >>>>2.4.27 available. > >>>>You may want to contact the author. > >>>> > >>>How long as 2.4.27 been out? I hate to be a nag too soon. > >>> > >>3 weeks or so > > > >I see the website has a later 2.4.26 patch that what we are using. > >That might be worth a try. I updated to the latest 2.4.26 patch, and still aborts. Hopefully they'll have a newer one soon. - BS |
