On Feb 13, 2008 2:26 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Amit Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > As far as I remembers, Ubuntu uses klibc in initramfs, right?
> > >
> > > What version of klibc do you have? There was a bug in klibc that
> > > causes such behavior on PIE-randomizati
* Amit Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As far as I remembers, Ubuntu uses klibc in initramfs, right?
> >
> > What version of klibc do you have? There was a bug in klibc that
> > causes such behavior on PIE-randomization-enabled kernels, and has
> > been fixed in klibc-1.45 by commit [1]. Pl
On Feb 10, 2008 6:00 PM, Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Amit Shah wrote:
>
> > cc503c1b "x86: PIE executable randomization" doesn't boot on my Ubuntu
> > Feisty Fawn Intel Core2 system.
> > I get numerous segfaults before getting a (initramfs) busybox shell. A
> > simi
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Amit Shah wrote:
> cc503c1b "x86: PIE executable randomization" doesn't boot on my Ubuntu
> Feisty Fawn Intel Core2 system.
> I get numerous segfaults before getting a (initramfs) busybox shell. A
> similar bug was reported much earlier:
[ please, when you experience a problem
On Jan 30, 2008 6:45 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - PIE/brk randomization. Not a single regression happened due to this so
> far (and it's been in x86.git for months) - it seems exec-shield has
> rooted out stuff years ago - but we'll see. Details in the patch. It's
> easily
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> Well, let's try it this way: Find below a patch against kgdb.git that
> removes the special fault handling (this wouldn't be the first feature I
> recently removed from kgdb :->). Light testing revealed no obvious
> problems yet.
That is indeed horrible
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> /me was once wondering as well why kgdb installs a seconds way of
>> handling (its own) faults. Jason explained to me that this approach is
>> more robust against corruption along the normal fix-up path.
>
> That's 100% bogus.
>
>> If you recall the issues (and they are still
Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
> Regarding security:
>
> On the software side: The new fw-ohci driver seems to allow physical DMA only
> to devices which pretend to be FireWire disks (it is the specified way to
> transfer the data)
...
To be precise, firewire-sbp2 tells firewire-ohci to open up the physi
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> John Stoffel wrote:
> >
> > Linus> So I'd merge a patch that puts oops information (or the whole
> > Linus> console printout) in the Intel management stuff in a
> > Linus> heartbeat.
> >
> > How about we put in some sort of console logging tool so we ca
> /me was once wondering as well why kgdb installs a seconds way of
> handling (its own) faults. Jason explained to me that this approach is
> more robust against corruption along the normal fix-up path.
That's 100% bogus.
>
> If you recall the issues (and they are still present), it would be ni
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> kgdb? Not so interesting. We have many more hard problems happening at
>> user sites, not in developer hands.
>
> The other problem with the current kgdb code is that it has some serious
> problems. e.g. it reinvents various kernel interfaces that already
> exist -- one examp
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> So I'd merge a patch that puts oops information (or the whole console
> printout) in the Intel management stuff in a heartbeat. That code is
> likely much grottier than any kgdb thing will ever be (Intel really
> screwed up the interface and made it
Hi Christoph,
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> But kgdb traditionally was more than just a simple gdb stub and
> contained hooks all over the place for additional functionality.
> I don't think all this is a good idea and I'd be against it.
>
> I'd be really happy to see a common gdb stub with small ar
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:11:03PM -0800, Phil Oester wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > kgdb? Not so interesting. We have many more hard problems happening at
> > user sites, not in developer hands.
>
> FWIW, I'm not a fulltime developer by any means, bu
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 04:08, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> While too many people consider a debugger as _the_ tool for kernel
> development, which it clearly isn't, it remains a fairly useful
> feature, and I don't see any regression, technically or
> organizationally, it may introduce to Linux. IMHO
On Monday 04 February 2008 19:27, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > The x86 tree was merged several times, but I don't see kgdb
> > included in latest mainline -git.
> >
> > So just one question, will it be included or no?
>
> I won't even consider pulling it unl
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:11:03 -0800 Phil Oester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> kgdb? Not so interesting. We have many more hard problems happening at
>>> user sites, not in developer hands.
>> FWIW, I'm not
Dear Kernel Maintainers,
I am with Phil Oester and Andrew Morton when it comes to getting
kgdb into the mainline kernel. I _am_ a full time developer, and
when I have to work with Linux kernel code, kgdb makes things a lot
easier. I work on many different platforms, with many different
oper
John Stoffel wrote:
Linus> So I'd merge a patch that puts oops information (or the whole
Linus> console printout) in the Intel management stuff in a
Linus> heartbeat.
How about we put in some sort of console logging tool so we can buffer
and log the console output better? Currently if I have
> "Linus" == Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Linus> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>>
>> The x86 tree was merged several times, but I don't see kgdb included in
>> latest mainline -git.
>>
>> So just one question, will it be included or no?
Linus> I won't even conside
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:11:03 -0800 Phil Oester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > kgdb? Not so interesting. We have many more hard problems happening at
> > user sites, not in developer hands.
>
> FWIW, I'm not a fulltime developer by
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 07:27:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> kgdb? Not so interesting. We have many more hard problems happening at
> user sites, not in developer hands.
FWIW, I'm not a fulltime developer by any means, but on occasion
I have fixed a few bugs in the netfilter area of the kern
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>
> The x86 tree was merged several times, but I don't see kgdb included in
> latest mainline -git.
>
> So just one question, will it be included or no?
I won't even consider pulling it unless it's offered as a separate tree,
not mixed up with other
On Wednesday, 30 January 2008 03:15:50 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Linus, please pull the latest x86 git tree from:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86.git
>
> Find the shortlog attached below.
>
> Most of the changes we have described here:
>
> http://lkml.o
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about the breakages caused by commit
a5a19c63f4e55e32dc0bc3d936d7f94793d8b380 (this commit broke the
defconfig compilation on at least avr32, blackfin, sh, sparc and uml)?
the patch below fixes that.
Is it sa
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What about the breakages caused by commit
> > > a5a19c63f4e55e32dc0bc3d936d7f94793d8b380 (this commit broke the
> > > defconfig compilation on at least avr32, blackfin, sh, sparc and uml)?
> >
> > the patch below fixes that.
>
> Is it safe, or wh
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:15:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:00:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> > * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > You tested x86 but broke more than half a dozen other archtectu
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:15:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:00:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You tested x86 but broke more than half a dozen other a
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:00:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > You tested x86 but broke more than half a dozen other archtectures,
> > > with at least 3 different commits breaking other architec
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:00:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You tested x86 but broke more than half a dozen other archtectures,
> > with at least 3 different commits breaking other architectures.
>
> Note that all known breakages are fixed in
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that all known breakages are fixed in current -git, except for
> the s390 problem that Martin/Nick posted the fix.
find below the s390 fix.
Ingo
Index: linux/arch/s390/Kconfig
=
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You tested x86 but broke more than half a dozen other archtectures,
> with at least 3 different commits breaking other architectures.
Note that all known breakages are fixed in current -git, except for the
s390 problem that Martin/Nick posted the fix.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 02:15:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Linus, please pull the latest x86 git tree from:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86.git
>
> Find the shortlog attached below.
>
> Most of the changes we have described here:
>
> http://lkm
33 matches
Mail list logo
