Chris wrote: >Blaisorblade wrote: > >>Yep, this crash wasn't described in your original mail, so please add all >>details about the compilation environment, the host kernel, the hardware and >>the scenario triggering the host crash (if any). >> >> >> >> >> > >here we go: > >Portage 2.0.51.22-r3 (hardened/x86/2.6, gcc-3.4.4, glibc-2.3.5-r2, >2.6.12-gentoo-r10-skas3-v8.2 i686) >================================================================= >System uname: 2.6.12-gentoo-r10-skas3-v8.2 i686 Pentium III (Coppermine) >Gentoo Base System version 1.6.13 >ccache version 2.3 [enabled] >dev-lang/python: 2.3.5-r2, 2.4.2 >sys-apps/sandbox: 1.2.12 >sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13, 2.59-r6 >sys-devel/automake: 1.4_p6, 1.5, 1.6.3, 1.7.9-r1, 1.8.5-r3, 1.9.6-r1 >sys-devel/binutils: 2.16.1 >sys-devel/libtool: 1.5.20 >virtual/os-headers: 2.6.11-r2 >CBUILD="i686-pc-linux-gnu" >CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer" >CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" >CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer" > >the system is a dual p3 with 1ghz (smp enabled), 2gb ram (high memory is >set to 4gb), nptl. > >the scenario was: >2 umls running chrooted using your precompiled um32-2.6.14-release. they >were bridged with the host using brctl, which so far went without >problems. to really stress them i started 10 scp which endlessly copied >bzipped kernelsources to and from each other (host<->uml, uml<->uml, >uml<->some other machine on the net) which pushed the load on the host >around 20. >~10h later the host crashed. > >i ran the same kind of test before without uml for 3 days nonstop to >test the host system before getting the umls into game, which worked >without a crash and a load around 30, so i guess it has something to do >with them, but to be sure i started the test again a few minutes ago, >only difference is that i'm trying your 2.6.13 binaries and on another >machine i began to recompile the system without a hardened tc and will >start the same test too and then post my results. >memtest also ran for ~24h without a failure, so i'm sure this isn't the >source of the problem. > >greets, chris > >btw, how about grsec + uml? some plans for this? (just curious, because >the chroot-restrictions from grsec would be really a great thing for the >paranoids beyond us *grin) > >
just to let you know, a few minutes ago the host crashed again... (no net, no screen, no numlock, it's fully dead) :( if there's anything i can do to help resolve this please let me know and i'll do what i can, because i think it would be a great thing to let uml run on hardened systems. as being a 'secure virtual os' for untrusted (root-)users it can't be bad to secure the host as much as possible. thx for your time, chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list User-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user
