* James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > could you try the fix below ontop of x86.git#testing, does it
> > > solve your boot hang?
> >
> > find below another fix that is somewhat better as it does not affect
> > the native kernel and !PARAVIRT.
>
> This works.
thanks. We'll delay the
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > could you try the fix below ontop of x86.git#testing, does it solve
> > your boot hang?
>
> find below another fix that is somewhat better as it does not affect the
> native kernel and !PARAVIRT.
This
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> could you try the fix below ontop of x86.git#testing, does it solve
> your boot hang?
find below another fix that is somewhat better as it does not affect the
native kernel and !PARAVIRT.
btw., this also explains why this bug wasnt reported sooner ag
James,
could you try the fix below ontop of x86.git#testing, does it solve your
boot hang?
Ingo
--->
Subject: x86: stackprotector fix: do not zap %gs
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat Feb 23 07:06:55 CET 2008
pda_init() puts 0 into %gs - that's wrong because
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 07:43:08AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > This is a regression. Can you please revert this commit.
>
> Not really. The thing is, CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR has never done anything
> at all, now it does, and it shows that
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:43:08 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > This is a regression. Can you please revert this commit.
>
> Not really. The thing is, CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR has never done
> anything at all, now it does
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> This is a regression. Can you please revert this commit.
Not really. The thing is, CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR has never done anything
at all, now it does, and it shows that it never worked.
So the commit that made it do something shouldn't be reverted
* James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please send me your full .config and the gcc version you used for
> > building the failing kernel.
>
> config attached.
thanks, i'll try that.
> gcc version 4.1.2 20071124 (Red Hat 4.1.2-36)
ok, i have a slightly older one:
gcc version 4.1.2 2
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > works fine for you? That has all the current stackprotector fixes. I
> > > plan to send a separate pull request with just the stackprotector
> > > fixes to Linus, they are looking good in testing so f
* James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > works fine for you? That has all the current stackprotector fixes. I
> > plan to send a separate pull request with just the stackprotector
> > fixes to Linus, they are looking good in testing so far.
>
> Nope, same problem.
>
> (I followed your in
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > This is on an x86_64 system (actually an Intel SDV -- so it might be
> > > "special").
> >
> > This is a regression. Can you please revert this commit. We can redo
> > it wehn the -fstack-protector st
* Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is on an x86_64 system (actually an Intel SDV -- so it might be
> > "special").
>
> This is a regression. Can you please revert this commit. We can redo
> it wehn the -fstack-protector stuff are properly fixed in x86.
No!
James, could you ple
12 matches
Mail list logo
