From: Josip G. <gr...@te...> - 2003-04-14 07:04:54
|
Hello! What is currently (while there's no official patch) the easiest way to run UML under RedHat 9? Could somebody please explain the procedure (possibly the one not requiring disabling NTPL support in the kernel). Thanks, Josip |
From: Josip G. <gr...@te...> - 2003-04-15 09:12:29
|
Nobody answered my question, and since this is quite important to me, I will repeat it. Is there a way to run UML on RedHat9 without disabling NPTL in kernel? Is anyone working on a skas patch for RH9? Thanks, Josip |
From: M A Y. <m.a...@du...> - 2003-04-16 09:38:41
|
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Josip Gracin wrote: > Is there a way to run UML on RedHat9 without disabling > NPTL in kernel? Deleting the line (void) CHOOSE_MODE(signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN), (void *) 0); from arch/um/kernel/process.c before compiling the uml kernel seems to get tt mode working. > Is anyone working on a skas patch for RH9? RedHat have modified significently the code to which the skas3 host patch would apply, and also has the ptrace security patch from the later 2.4.21-pre versions applied, both of which could potentially make an skas patch for RH9 difficult. Michael Young |
From: Josip G. <gr...@te...> - 2003-04-16 10:35:43
|
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 11:38, M A Young wrote: > On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Josip Gracin wrote: > > Is there a way to run UML on RedHat9 without disabling > > NPTL in kernel? > > Deleting the line > (void) CHOOSE_MODE(signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN), (void *) 0); Thanks very much! That does it. I believe the tt mode will be sufficient for my purpose. I still hope in time there will be a skas patch for RH9 kernel. Best regards, Josip |
From: Oleg D. <gr...@li...> - 2003-04-25 05:32:39
|
Hello! Josip Gracin <gr...@te...> wrote: JG> What is currently (while there's no official patch) the easiest way to JG> run UML under RedHat 9? There already is. uml patch 2.4.20-um4 is out ;) Bye, Oleg |
From: Martin M. <uml...@tw...> - 2003-04-25 13:59:37
|
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 09:31:55AM +0400, Oleg Drokin wrote: > uml patch 2.4.20-um4 is out ;) Just. ;-) (1) One thing I've never been quite clear on: was the "Red Hat 9" issue related to the ptrace bug fix, and if so does um4 also repair that problem in non-RH kernels (such as 21-rc1, if that wasn't a dream)? (1) viz., it wasn't there last time I looked, and that wasn't so very long ago. -- There is nothing perhaps so generally consoling to a man as a well-established grievance; a feeling of having been injured, on which his mind can brood from hour to hour, allowing him to plead his own cause in his own court, within his own heart, and always to plead it successfully. -- Anthony Trollope |
From: M A Y. <m.a...@du...> - 2003-04-26 08:29:56
|
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Martin Maney wrote: > One thing I've never been quite clear on: was the "Red Hat 9" issue > related to the ptrace bug fix, and if so does um4 also repair that > problem in non-RH kernels (such as 21-rc1, if that wasn't a dream)? No, the RedHat 9 issue fixed in 2.4.20-um4 is a signal handling bug in tt mode on the uml kernel which was triggered consistently by RedHat 9 parent systems due to scheduling changes. The ptrace problem by contrast affects skas mode, by tightening up security on the parent kernel in such a way that skas ceases to work. I have seen a one line fix for the host-skas3.patch which fixes this problem by relaxing the security a bit, but this is not currently relevant to RedHat 9 parent systems, as other differences from the standard kernel mean you can't apply the host-skas3.patch anyway. Michael Young |
From: Martin M. <uml...@tw...> - 2003-04-26 14:30:53
|
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:29:25AM +0100, M A Young wrote: > have seen a one line fix for the host-skas3.patch which fixes this > problem by relaxing the security a bit, but this is not currently > relevant to RedHat 9 parent systems, as other differences from the > standard kernel mean you can't apply the host-skas3.patch anyway. D'oh - posting before coffee again! I was, indeed, thinking about the RH9 vs. SKAS problem and managed to forget which patch [name] was for what. I suppose I could claim that the fact that they were both at release 3 added to the confusion, but it was mostly just lack of working brain. -- Caffeine error: operator halted |