Quoting Samuel Thibault (2016-02-23 23:27:26) > Justus Winter, on Tue 23 Feb 2016 23:24:08 +0100, wrote: > > Quoting Samuel Thibault (2016-02-23 23:04:25) > > > Samuel Thibault, on Tue 23 Feb 2016 22:22:02 +0100, wrote: > > > > Thomas Schwinge, on Tue 23 Feb 2016 12:02:36 +0100, wrote: > > > > > > I couldn't figure out any pattern from looking at the diffs between > > > > > > the > > > > > > respective Hurd packages' sources. > > > > > > > > I've digged a bit, the difference that matters between -2 and -3 > > > > is about the protected payload optimization. -2 used to disable it > > > > because we had issues with pflocal. -3 fixed the pflocal issue and thus > > > > re-enabled the optimization. > > > > > > > > So apparently there is at least another issue with it. > > > > > > I have thus disabled it again at least in the Debian package, for now. > > > > You should also be able to disable it in the kernel, just ignore > > mach_port_set_protected_payload requests by making them return early. > > No, that's not the culprit, see the patch detail: this is the case where > the kernel didn't record a protected payload, libports then makes the > hash lookup, and stores the result so the translator demuxer doesn't do > this again.
Ah, I hadn't seen that patch. I fixed that issue in master. > Apparently the translator demuxer does not expect that and does > crazy things. Is there a problem with a specific translator? Justus
