On Wednesday 01 February 2006 04:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I tried upgrading my UML running 2.4.28-1um to 2.6.15.2-bs1. After bringing
> the UML up under the later kernel, I noticed random processes within the
> UML would segfault. For instance, I tried SSHing to it over and over and in
> abou
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 21:04, Adam Atlas wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2006, at 12.57, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > If it's on the same subnet as the host one, simply remove that IP
> > from the
> > host and give it to the guest following the normal configuration
> > steps...
> >
> > If not, it can be accompli
I'm forwarding the email to the ML since it's intended for that (and I've no
time to answer right now).
Btw, I think the problem is more likely to lie on port = 0 than on INADDR_ANY
(you'd at least need to be root to use a port < 1024, and I think port 0 is
invalid).
-- Forwarded Mess
Resending, forgot to CC the list. Please excuse my dupe Blaisorblade.
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:28:21PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> That's indeed harmless... but didn't the ssh log contain anything?
Nope. I was watching all syslog messages (all facilities, level debug and
higher) and no error
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 22:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I tried upgrading my UML running 2.4.28-1um to 2.6.15.2-bs1. After
> bringing the UML up under the later kernel, I noticed random
> processes within the UML would segfault. For instance, I tried
> SSHing to it over and over and in about 1
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:28:06PM -0500, Allen Chan wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 January 2006 22:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I tried upgrading my UML running 2.4.28-1um to 2.6.15.2-bs1. After
> > bringing the UML up under the later kernel, I noticed random
> > processes within the UML would segfaul
