reassign 329090 kernel-patch-vserver
thanks
Hello
Thanks a lot for your testing.
Micah could you test with 0.30.208-2 version of util-vserver (from unstable)
and a 2.6 kernel to see if you can remove all the problems?
See below why I would like you do that.
---
I have only tested with ext2 and ext3 on my systems on a 2.4.27 kernel
patched a long time ago. Do not remember when.
0.30.204-5sarge2 (sarge version, built on machine with no vserver support):
[000]. xattr related tests ...
[101]. [102]. [103]* [104]* [106]* [108]. [109]*
[112]. [113]. [114]* [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
[121]* [122]* [123]. [124]* [199].
0.30.204-5sarge3 (sarge version recompiled on vserver machine):
[000]. xattr related tests ...
[101]. [102]. [103]* [104]* [106]* [108]. [109]*
[112]. [113]. [114]* [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
[121]* [122]* [123]. [124]* [199].
0.30.208-2 (unstable version, built on sarge host with no vserver support):
[000]. xattr related tests ...
[101]. [102]. [103]. [104]* [106]. [108]. [109].
[112]. [113]. [114]* [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
[121]. [122]* [123]. [124]* [199].
0.30.208-2sarge1 (unstable version rebuilt for sarge on vserver machine):
[000]. xattr related tests ...
[101]. [102]. [103]. [104]* [106]. [108]. [109].
[112]. [113]. [114]* [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119].
[121]. [122]* [123]. [124]* [199].
So my conclusion is that where you build the binary (if it is a i386 machine)
do not give any difference from a security point of view.
Now to your testing...
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 07:00:22PM -0400, micah wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> These bug reports are very confusing, I am performing my own tests to
> help clarify.
Thanks a lot! It is really a big help.
> Andrew Lee wrote:
>
> > The VCI shouldn't be <none> if you have setup /dev/loop4 correctly, I
> > did same thing and got same errors when I forgot to setup the /dev/
> > loop4 after a reboot.
>
> No, "VCI: <none> (unknown)" is fine in 2.4 because 2.4 has no VCI info.
>
> > Here is what I did for create a loopback file and the run losetup:
> > # dd bs=1024k count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=1gb.testfile
> > # losetup /dev/loop4 1gb.testfs
> > Note: I have other loopback files running on /dev/loop{0,1,2,3}
> > already, so I use /dev/loop4 in my case.
Did similar but used lvm instead of loopback device.
> The following is the results of my tests:
>
> For all tests the following packages need to be installed:
> xfsprogs jfsutils reiserfsprogs reiser4progs util-vserver
> (0.30.204-5sarge2 unless otherwise noted)
>
> Procedure is to do:
> 1. # dd bs=1024k count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=/home/1gb.testfile
> 2. # losetup /dev/loop4 /home/1gb.testfile
> 3. # mkdir /mnt2
>
> On 2.6 kernels the following switches were used to test:
> 4. # ./testfs.sh-0.09 -vv -D /dev/loop4 -M /mnt2
>
> Test 1:
>
> Sarge kernel 2.6.8 (2.6.8-16) with debian package kernel-patch-vserver
> (debian package version: 1.9.5.3, kernel patch:
> patch-2.6.8-15-vs1.9.5.x-4.diff.gz) applied on an i386 machine.
>
>
> Results:
> All the tests succeed on ext2/ext3/reiserfs, the following fail:
> xfs: 103, 106, 113, 115, 117
> jfs: 104, 114, 121, 122, 123, 124
Which means that this is a kernel patch problem as it fail on my system
with an older kernel patch.
This also mean that this is actually just a bug with 2.4 kernels.
> Test 2:
>
> Sarge kernel 2.6.8 (2.6.8-16) with debian kernel-patch-vserver (debian
> package version: 1.9.5.4 (not in sarge), kernel patch
> patch-2.6.8-15-vs1.9.5.x-5.diff.gz) applied on an i386 machine.
>
> Results:
> Exactly the same as the results from Test 1
>
> Test 3:
>
> Sarge kernel 2.4.27 (2.4.27-10) with the debian kernel-patch-vserver
> (debian package version: 1.9.5.3, kernel patch
> patch-2.4.27-9-vs1.2.10-2.diff.gz) applied on an i386 machine.
>
> Results:
>
> ext2/ext3 failures: 103, 104, 106, 109, 114, 121, 122, 124
> xfs failures: 103, 104, 106, 109, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 124
> reiserfs failures: 103, 104, 106, 109, 114, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124
> jfs failures: 103, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121,
> 122, 123, 124
Get the same result. Think I have used a similar patch.
[103]* [104]* [106]* [109]* [114]* [121]* [122]* [124]*
> Note: Bertl says this is a failure with the util-vserver tools, so I
> perform the test again with util-vserver .208 from unstable:
>
> Test 4:
> Sarge kernel 2.4.27 (2.4.27-10) with the debian kernel-patch-vserver
> (debian package version: 1.9.5.3, kernel patch
> patch-2.4.27-9-vs1.2.10-2.diff.gz) applied on an i386 machine. Using
> util-vserver tools from unstable (0.30.208-2)
>
> ext2/ext3 failures: 104, 106, 114, 122, 124
> xfs failures: 103, 104, 106, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 124
> reiserfs failures: 104, 106, 114, 118, 119, 122, 124
> jfs failures: 102, 103, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119,
> 121, 122, 123, 124
So with your testing and mine I come to the conclusion that some of the
tests are related to util-vserver and some are related to the kernel. As all
of them was possible to fix (unless you use xfs or jfs) by using
the latest kernel I assume that I can redirect this bug to the
kernel-patch-vserver package instead. But it would be good to know
if some of the errors was related to util-vserver or not.
Regards,
// Ola
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
