On Tuesday 07 December 2004 01:50, Paul Warren wrote: > On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 12:32:25AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > > On Monday 06 December 2004 22:39, Paul Warren wrote: > > > I'm trying to compile a 2.6.9 guest kernel. The vanilla 2.6.9 works > > > fine, but with bb2, bb3, and bb4, the kernel hangs as it starts: > > > > > > # ./vmlinux > > > Checking for /proc/mm...found > > > Checking for the skas3 patch in the host...found > > > Checking PROT_EXEC mmap in /tmp...OK > > > > > > [ needs to be CTRL-Ced here ] > > > > Well, rather bad, and it's the 1st time I see reports about a such > > issue... hope you're not enabling CONFIG_STATIC_LINK, because it is known > > to give problems (for me, I've never been able to make it work recently). > > Nope: > > ./vmlinux --showconfig | grep STATIC > # CONFIG_STATIC_LINK is not set > > > > This is on a 2.4.27 host. > > > > With which SKAS version applied? You have applied one patch, as it's > > clear above - just you don't specify which one. > > host-skas3-2.4.25-v3.patch > > The offending patch:
> 82:a:uml-refuse-to-run-without-skas-if-no-tt-mode-in-fix Ok, you're fairly handy with patch-scripts! But from the numbers you are using -bb2 (which is still fairly buggy). > Although it stops running after: > 45:a:uml-remove-devfs-mk-symlink I also don't think that those patches are the exact ones causing the problem - you're probably speaking of something in the middle, right? > with a slightly different message: > ./vmlinux > Checking for /proc/mm...found > Checking for the skas3 patch in the host...found > Support for TT mode is disabled, and no SKAS support is present on the > host. Well, that message is a silly bug in 2.6.9-bb1, fixed in -bb2 by #82, which is fixed by #82. However, either you skip the first one (uml-refuse-to-run-without-skas-if-no-tt-mode-in) or you move the second one (the above one with -fix at the end added, #82) to just after the first one, you'd get this second bug fixed. I still recommend concentrating on -bb4, if possible. At least I think so (I'm enough confident of that), your message seems a bit confused - are you applying patches from #1 onwards, right? Or reversing them? I'm not able to make any sense (yet) > I've attached a strace, as it is after applying #82. Forgot it? However, leave that alone - I'm more interested in making sense of the "push-pop patches" test. I'd also like, if you can, to see it done on -bb4. About -bb4: it should be safe if you apply patches from the top until uml-hostfs-add-sendfile.patch, then there is the second block until uml-fix-compile-bodo.patch, then some new fixes after that. At first, I'd suggesting using these three blocks of patches, seeing in which one is the problem, and checking further by splitting the block and applying only part of it until you get to the guilty one or you can post me some more data (as "it works when I apply from #1 to #a, when I apply from #a to #b it blocks, so it's in the middle). Thanks for your help! -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user
