Changing value of uname -r
uname -r returns 10.0-CURRENT setenv UNAME_r 9.0-RELEASE uname -r now returns 9.0-RELEASE How to reset uname -r to original value without doing setenv UNAME_r 10.0-CURRENT? Is there some way just to deactivate the effect of the setenv UNAME_r so it returns to the real value of the system? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Changing value of uname -r
Jason Lenthe wrote: On 01/01/13 12:49, Fbsd8 wrote: Is there some way just to deactivate the effect of the setenv UNAME_r so it returns to the real value of the system? I think you just want to do: unsetenv UNAME_r Yes that worked. Thanks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Changing value of uname -r
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Tue Jan 1 11:52:49 2013 Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:49:17 -0500 From: Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com To: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Changing value of uname -r uname -r returns 10.0-CURRENT setenv UNAME_r 9.0-RELEASE uname -r now returns 9.0-RELEASE How to reset uname -r to original value without doing setenv UNAME_r 10.0-CURRENT? Is there some way just to deactivate the effect of the setenv UNAME_r so it returns to the real value of the system? Did you try: unsetenv UNAME_r If yes, what were the results? If no, _why_not_? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Changing value of uname -r
Robert Bonomi wrote: From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Tue Jan 1 11:52:49 2013 Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:49:17 -0500 From: Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com To: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Changing value of uname -r uname -r returns 10.0-CURRENT setenv UNAME_r 9.0-RELEASE uname -r now returns 9.0-RELEASE How to reset uname -r to original value without doing setenv UNAME_r 10.0-CURRENT? Is there some way just to deactivate the effect of the setenv UNAME_r so it returns to the real value of the system? Did you try: unsetenv UNAME_r If yes, what were the results? If no, _why_not_? yes unsetenv UNAME_r worked. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: uname -r output values?
On 21 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: Fleuriot Damien wrote: On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to expect? So far I have this list. Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers Where y = number 1 through 9 X.X-BETAy X.X-RCy X.X-RELEASE X.X-RELEASE-py X.X-PRERELEASE X.X-CURRENT mybsd dam ~ $ uname -r 8.2-STABLE How did you create this 8.2-STABLE system? I don't see any .iso file for Instructions given already by Devin. Basically, STABLE is a good compromise between running the latest version (10-CURRENT if you're on 9, or 9.x if you're on 8), and running a RELEASE that gets updated very slowly. I've never had bad surprises with STABLE and encourage running it instead of RELEASE if you want the latest patches. Note that on occasion, STABLE will be replaced by BETA or RC. For example 8.2-STABLE became 8.3-RC1 at some point, then 8.3-RC1 ceased to exist altogether and was renamed to 8.3-STABLE (discounting any other release candidates here). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
uname -r output values?
When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to expect? So far I have this list. Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers Where y = number 1 through 9 X.X-BETAy X.X-RCy X.X-RELEASE X.X-RELEASE-py X.X-PRERELEASE X.X-CURRENT ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: uname -r output values?
mybsd dam ~ $ uname -r 8.2-STABLE On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to expect? So far I have this list. Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers Where y = number 1 through 9 X.X-BETAy X.X-RCy X.X-RELEASE X.X-RELEASE-py X.X-PRERELEASE X.X-CURRENT ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: uname -r output values?
Fleuriot Damien wrote: On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to expect? So far I have this list. Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers Where y = number 1 through 9 X.X-BETAy X.X-RCy X.X-RELEASE X.X-RELEASE-py X.X-PRERELEASE X.X-CURRENT mybsd dam ~ $ uname -r 8.2-STABLE How did you create this 8.2-STABLE system? I don't see any .iso file for this. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: svn revision in uname
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM, David Demelier demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: I hope it will be removed soon, it pollutes the uname -a output. I don't hope so. It helps us keep track of the exact revision numbers of deployed servers here. Please don't remove it, or at least, provide an additional switch to uname to retrieve it. Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: svn revision in uname
David Demelier demelier.da...@gmail.com writes: 2012/12/15 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org Anders N. wic...@baot.se writes: Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826. This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname -a looks normal. Two other people I asked have r243825 (installed from ISO) and r243872 (upgraded from svn). They're all 9.1-RELEASE, shouldn't they be the same, final version? As I understand it, the revision ID refers to the whole repository, not just a branch. So if you do your own svn checkout tomorrow, you'll get yet another revision number, even though the files will (probably) be completely identical to what you checked out yesterday -- ongoing commits to HEAD will keep kicking the revision number up. There is work going on to make system builds completely, bit-for-bit, repeatable, but that will presumably mean getting rid of this revision number information, not making it consistent. I hope it will be removed soon, it pollutes the uname -a output. It's easy enough to add a stage in the kernel build to remove it if you don't like it, but in most source-update environments it's a very valuable piece of information. Even if a reproduceable-build infrastructure is put in place, it would have to be optional because this information is necessary in heterogeneous environments. I don't know that anyone's working on it the moment -- I *thought* I'd read something about it recently, but I can't find any reference to such an effort this year. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: svn revision in uname
I hope it will be removed soon, it pollutes the uname -a output. 2012/12/15 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org Anders N. wic...@baot.se writes: Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826. This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname -a looks normal. Two other people I asked have r243825 (installed from ISO) and r243872 (upgraded from svn). They're all 9.1-RELEASE, shouldn't they be the same, final version? As I understand it, the revision ID refers to the whole repository, not just a branch. So if you do your own svn checkout tomorrow, you'll get yet another revision number, even though the files will (probably) be completely identical to what you checked out yesterday -- ongoing commits to HEAD will keep kicking the revision number up. There is work going on to make system builds completely, bit-for-bit, repeatable, but that will presumably mean getting rid of this revision number information, not making it consistent. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Demelier David ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
svn revision in uname
Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826. This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname -a looks normal. Two other people I asked have r243825 (installed from ISO) and r243872 (upgraded from svn). They're all 9.1-RELEASE, shouldn't they be the same, final version? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: svn revision in uname
On 12/15/12 13:44, Anders N. wrote: Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826. This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname -a looks normal. Two other people I asked have r243825 (installed from ISO) and r243872 (upgraded from svn). They're all 9.1-RELEASE, shouldn't they be the same, final version? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I just noticed the same thing in my 'uname -a' $ uname -a FreeBSD alex-laptop 9.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE #0 r243825: Tue Dec 4 09:23:10 UTC 2012 r...@farrell.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 I guess a re-install when it is truly finalized? -- Yours in Christ, Joseph A Nagy Jr Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, But he who hates correction is stupid. -- Proverbs 12:1 Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. Original content CopyFree (F) under the OWL http://owl.apotheon.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: svn revision in uname
Anders N. wic...@baot.se writes: Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826. This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname -a looks normal. Two other people I asked have r243825 (installed from ISO) and r243872 (upgraded from svn). They're all 9.1-RELEASE, shouldn't they be the same, final version? As I understand it, the revision ID refers to the whole repository, not just a branch. So if you do your own svn checkout tomorrow, you'll get yet another revision number, even though the files will (probably) be completely identical to what you checked out yesterday -- ongoing commits to HEAD will keep kicking the revision number up. There is work going on to make system builds completely, bit-for-bit, repeatable, but that will presumably mean getting rid of this revision number information, not making it consistent. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: uname ?
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:09:00PM +0800, joeb1 wrote: It looks to me that the uname -m and uname -p always have the same value, such as i386. Is there some fine-grained difference or some un-documented difference between them or some combination were the values would be different? I don't have one handy, so I don't have any way to test this right now, but I wonder if an AMD machine might give a different answer to one of those than an Intel machine, given a 32-bit 386 instruction set processor for both. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: uname ?
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:30:51AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:09:00PM +0800, joeb1 wrote: It looks to me that the uname -m and uname -p always have the same value, such as i386. Is there some fine-grained difference or some un-documented difference between them or some combination were the values would be different? I don't have one handy, so I don't have any way to test this right now, but I wonder if an AMD machine might give a different answer to one of those than an Intel machine, given a 32-bit 386 instruction set processor for both. I *guess* they will be different for some targets in this list: $ make targets -C /usr/src Supported TARGET/TARGET_ARCH pairs for world and kernel targets amd64/amd64 arm/arm arm/armeb i386/i386 ia64/ia64 mips/mipsel mips/mipseb mips/mips64el mips/mips64eb mips/mipsn32eb pc98/i386 powerpc/powerpc powerpc/powerpc64 sparc64/sparc64 Yuri pgp3oTUsEpBMa.pgp Description: PGP signature
uname ?
It looks to me that the uname -m and uname -p always have the same value, such as i386. Is there some fine-grained difference or some un-documented difference between them or some combination were the values would be different? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
FBSD82 sec patch -p4, uname still -p3
I just applied security patch -p4 (last week -p3) to a freebsd 8.2 system (generic kernel) # freebsd-update fetch # freebsd-update install # ls -la /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh has date of today and contains REVISION=8.2 BRANCH=RELEASE-p4 reboot # uname -r 8.2-RELEASE-p3 still shows -p3 not -p4 # uname -a FreeBSD mcsbu.cde.ua.ac.be 8.2-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE-p3 #0: Tue Sep 27 18:45:57 UTC 2011 r...@amd64-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 why? -p4 was a small patch to linux emulation mode, which I don't have installed is this why it is still -p3 ? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FBSD82 sec patch -p4, uname still -p3
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:55:26AM +0200, n dhert thus spake: I just applied security patch -p4 (last week -p3) to a freebsd 8.2 system (generic kernel) # freebsd-update fetch # freebsd-update install # ls -la /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh has date of today and contains REVISION=8.2 BRANCH=RELEASE-p4 reboot # uname -r 8.2-RELEASE-p3 still shows -p3 not -p4 # uname -a FreeBSD mcsbu.cde.ua.ac.be 8.2-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE-p3 #0: Tue Sep 27 18:45:57 UTC 2011 r...@amd64-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 why? -p4 was a small patch to linux emulation mode, which I don't have installed is this why it is still -p3 ? If your kernel wasn't touched during the update, then uname won't bump. -jgh -- Jason Helfman System Administrator experts-exchange.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html E4AD 7CF1 1396 27F6 79DD 4342 5E92 AD66 8C8C FBA5 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FBSD82 sec patch -p4, uname still -p3
On 07.10.2011 09:01, Jason Helfman wrote: If your kernel wasn't touched during the update, then uname won't bump. but as -p4 for 8.2 fixes FreeBSD-SA-11:05.unix, it should have touched the kernel, shouldn't it? regards - Michael ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FBSD82 sec patch -p4, uname still -p3
I believe the reason is the following: The changes were to /boot/GENERIC/linux.ko and /boot/GENERIC/linux.ko.symbols and NOT to the *freebsd* kernel /boot/GENERIC/kernel ... So,the freebsd kernel didn't change, uname -a gets its info from the linux kernel (not directly from the /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh file), this is unchanged, hence it still reports -p3 On another system where I have a custom kernel (QUOTA support), as always, I did a makebuild from sources (although stricktly spreaking it in *this* case it was not necessary), did a makeinstall, rebooted, and there uname -a is -p4, which makes sense, since rebuilding the kernel from source files wrote the information contained in /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh into the kernel binary, from which uname -a extracts the patch version .. 2011/10/7 Michael Schaefer utf...@googlemail.com On 07.10.2011 09:01, Jason Helfman wrote: If your kernel wasn't touched during the update, then uname won't bump. but as -p4 for 8.2 fixes FreeBSD-SA-11:05.unix, it should have touched the kernel, shouldn't it? regards - Michael ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FBSD82 sec patch -p4, uname still -p3
well I know about the newvers.sh. But as far as I understand the advisory (and the patch) the file sys/kern/uipc_usrreq.c is modified. I'm not that much into the FreeBSD kernel code. However, isn't this affecting the kernel image? regards - Michael On 07.10.2011 13:33, n dhert wrote: I believe the reason is the following: The changes were to /boot/GENERIC/linux.ko and /boot/GENERIC/linux.ko.symbols and NOT to the *freebsd* kernel /boot/GENERIC/kernel ... So,the freebsd kernel didn't change, uname -a gets its info from the linux kernel (not directly from the /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh file), this is unchanged, hence it still reports -p3 On another system where I have a custom kernel (QUOTA support), as always, I did a makebuild from sources (although stricktly spreaking it in *this* case it was not necessary), did a makeinstall, rebooted, and there uname -a is -p4, which makes sense, since rebuilding the kernel from source files wrote the information contained in /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh into the kernel binary, from which uname -a extracts the patch version .. 2011/10/7 Michael Schaefer utf...@googlemail.com On 07.10.2011 09:01, Jason Helfman wrote: If your kernel wasn't touched during the update, then uname won't bump. but as -p4 for 8.2 fixes FreeBSD-SA-11:05.unix, it should have touched the kernel, shouldn't it? regards - Michael ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Embedding a RCS token in uname -i
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:21:46 -0600 (MDT),
Dennis Glatting free...@penx.com said:
D My goal is to provide a mechanism where I can identify that kernels
D built on a group of machines are running the same kernel built from a
D configuration under RCS. How can I customized the current config and
D build mechanisms to accomplish this?
Make your changes to the file GENERIC.in, run a small script to create
GENERIC with the stuff you want, and then do your build.
D Is it a dumb idea?
I don't think so. See below for one way to do it; the script includes a
sanity check to make sure your build config file has been checked in.
--
Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company
Mr. Rogers was an ordained minister.--item for a lull in conversation
---
me% cat -n GENERIC.in
1 # $Revision: 1.2 $ $Date: 2011/06/22 18:13:14 $
2
3 cpu HAMMER
4 ident GENERIC
5 ...
me% ./mkgen
me% cat -n GENERIC
1 # THIS FILE WAS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED. GENERIC.in is under
2 # revision control, so please make your changes there.
3 #
4 # $Revision: 1.2 $ $Date: 2011/06/22 18:13:14 $
5
6 cpu HAMMER
7 ident GENERIC-1.2-20110622
8 ...
me% cat mkgen
#!/bin/ksh
#mkgen: Get version and date info from GENERIC.in, write GENERIC
export PATH=/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
in=GENERIC.in
out=GENERIC
if rcsdiff -q $in /dev/null; then
echo updating $out
else
echo $in needs to be checked in
exit 0
fi
nawk -v ifile=$in 'BEGIN {
warn1 = # THIS FILE WAS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED.
warn2 = # revision control, so please make your changes there.\n#
}
{
if ($0 ~ /Revision:/) {
print warn1, ifile, is under
print warn2
print
gsub(/, )
id = sprintf(%s-%s%s%s, $3, $6, $7, $8)
}
else if ($0 ~ /^ident/) { print $0 - id }
else print
}' $in $out
exit 0
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Embedding a RCS token in uname -i
I have kernel configuration files (e.g., a custom GENERIC) under RCS. For example: == # $Revision: 1.1$ cpu HAMMER ident GENERIC == I want to add that 1.1 to the end of GENERIC such that it becomes: == # $Revision: 1.1$ cpu HAMMER ident GENERIC-1.1 = Therefore, a uname -i becomes: btw uname -i GENERIC-1.1 My goal is to provide a mechanism where I can identify that kernels built on a group of machines are running the same kernel built from a configuration under RCS. How can I customized the current config and build mechanisms to accomplish this? Is there some other way to accomplish this? Is it a dumb idea? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
jail and uname
From the console of a jail I issue uname –r and get 8.0-RELEASE-p3, which is the release level of the host. I know the jail is running a pristine minimum install of 8.0-RELEASE. I would think issuing uname from within a jail environment should respond with the info of the jail environment. Is this not a security violation? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: jail and uname
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/07/2010 07:13:13, Aiza wrote: From the console of a jail I issue uname –r and get 8.0-RELEASE-p3, which is the release level of the host. I know the jail is running a pristine minimum install of 8.0-RELEASE. The uname information is compiled into the kernel -- so all jails will show the information relevant to the host system. The problem arises when a security patch applies to userland, and not the kernel, as updating the host system does not necessarily mean the update has been applied to the jails. I would think issuing uname from within a jail environment should respond with the info of the jail environment. Is this not a security violation? It can result in security problems, yes. The real problem there is an incorrect approach to applying security updates to jailed systems. Even so, not having a reliable means of telling per-jail that patches have or have not been applied is a flaw. Whether you can do this within the POSIX specification for uname without adversely affecting backwards compatibility is a good question (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/uname.html). Perhaps a simple solution would be to compile a constant string value showing system version and patch level into libc.so and have a small utility to print that data out. Since this is independent of the kernel, it should fulfill the requirements, but it does mean that *every* system update requires a new libc.so and hence a restart of all running processes to apply fully. While I'm here -- why doesn't FreeBSD use a simple version number like 7.3.4 rather than saying 7.3-RELEASE-p4? I realize that historically there have been point releases like 5.2.1-RELEASE but the whole Security/Errata branch concept was developed partly in response to such things, and the whole release engineering process is done differently now. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwu4aMACgkQ8Mjk52CukIzd2wCfQSLaRz+G5FK62+DQ0ZT4gXA0 gAQAn0eu7SY28lrfElvlwVWtRieiWk5W =PuxL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: jail and uname
Le Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:13:13 +0800, Aiza aiz...@comclark.com a écrit : From the console of a jail I issue uname –r and get 8.0-RELEASE-p3, which is the release level of the host. I know the jail is running a pristine minimum install of 8.0-RELEASE. I would think issuing uname from within a jail environment should respond with the info of the jail environment. Uname uses some sysctl to retrieve OS information, so they are stored in the kernel. For example : kern.ostype: FreeBSD kern.osrelease: 8.1-PRERELEASE Is this not a security violation? No I don't think. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: jail and uname
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 02:13:13PM +0800, Aiza wrote: From the console of a jail I issue uname -r and get 8.0-RELEASE-p3, which is the release level of the host. I know the jail is running a pristine minimum install of 8.0-RELEASE. I would think issuing uname from within a jail environment should respond with the info of the jail environment. Is this not a security violation? I'm guessing your understanding of jails is a bit off. A FreeBSD jail isn't a fully virtualised system. As implemented, jails share the host system's kernel. The Handbook makes clear that a jail is essentially defined by a directory subtree, a hostname, an IP address, and a command. Well, that, and things like user accounts. So when you run uname, what's reported is kernel information as stored in various sysctl(8) MIBs (kern.ostype, kern.osrelease, kern.osrevision, kern.version, etc.). And because there's only one kernel, you'll get the same output from running uname on the host as you would get from running it inside a jail. -- George ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
uname -r and patchlevel
Can somebody explain about the -plevel one sees in the output of the uname -r ? Under *exactly* what conditions the patch level changes to a new value after you applied a freebsd-update install ? Does -plevel only change if a) a change of the file /boot/kernel/kernel was part of the update or also if b) *some* /boot/kernel/* files (but not /boot/kernel/kernel itself) changed as part of the update Will in any case a new -plevel be shown only after a reboot is done ? I have confusing differences in -plevel increase/not increase in different FreeBSD systems after applying freebsd-update install. The handbook is too vague about what conditions *exactly* will make uname -r show the newest -plevel. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: uname -r and patchlevel
On 01/06/2010 2:33 ?.?., n dhert wrote: Can somebody explain about the -plevel one sees in the output of the uname -r ? Under *exactly* what conditions the patch level changes to a new value after you applied a freebsd-update install ? If you are using the GENERIC kernel AND the kernel was updated as part of the freebsd-update process, the patch level is changed. You will need to reboot. If you are using the GENERIC kernel AND the kernel was not updated as part of the freebsd-update process, the patch level reported is unchanged if you are using a CUSTOM kernel, the reported patch level is not changed until you rebuild your kernel with the new sources as updated by freebsd-update. After rebuilding your kernel it always reflects the latest -p version, even if there were no actual kernel changes. The reported -p level is contained in this file: /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh and this is always updated when an update comes through. If you rebuild your custom kernel (or even GENERIC) it will always report the value from this file. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
uname -a
su-3.2# uname -a FreeBSD dd.alexus.org 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #13: Tue Mar 23 20:47:52 UTC 2010 xx...@x.xxx.:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 su-3.2# why is it showing up #13 here? back when I had 7.2-RELEASE-pX i've had #12, I then did following: rm -rf /usr/src csup /usr/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile cd /usr/src make buildworld make buildkernel ... reboot now it show shows 7.3 and #13, i thought if i get rid of /usr/src and re-csup it it should reset to #1? or #0 -- http://alexus.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: uname -a
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:08:08AM -0400, alexus thus spake: su-3.2# uname -a FreeBSD dd.alexus.org 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #13: Tue Mar 23 20:47:52 UTC 2010 xx...@x.xxx.:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 su-3.2# why is it showing up #13 here? back when I had 7.2-RELEASE-pX i've had #12, I then did following: rm -rf /usr/src csup /usr/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile cd /usr/src make buildworld make buildkernel ... reboot now it show shows 7.3 and #13, i thought if i get rid of /usr/src and re-csup it it should reset to #1? or #0 Did you perform a 'make installkernel' ? -- http://alexus.org/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Jason Helfman System Administrator experts-exchange.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: uname -a
Hi, alexus wrote: su-3.2# uname -a FreeBSD dd.alexus.org 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #13: Tue Mar 23 20:47:52 UTC 2010 xx...@x.xxx.:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 su-3.2# why is it showing up #13 here? back when I had 7.2-RELEASE-pX i've had #12, I then did following: rm -rf /usr/src csup /usr/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile cd /usr/src make buildworld make buildkernel ... reboot now it show shows 7.3 and #13, i thought if i get rid of /usr/src and re-csup it it should reset to #1? or #0 The kernel version is incremented from /usr/obj, not /usr/src. To revert it to #0, remove /usr/obj. Regards, -- Glen Barber ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
6.3 uname -a weirdness
Hello. Due to the recent advisories, on an i386 6.3 box, i just did: cd /usr/src make update make buildworld make kernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL make installworld shutdown -r now Now uname -a reports 6.3p13, although cat /usr/src/UPDATING gives: ... 20091203: p14 FreeBSD-SA-09:15.ssl, FreeBSD-SA-09:17.freebsd-update Disable SSL renegotiation in order to protect against a serious protocol flaw. [09:15] Fix permissions in freebsd-update in order to prevent leakage of sensitive files. [09:17] ... I think the above does not affect the kernel; in fact I recompiled it just to be able to check the OS version with uname. Just curious on whether this is normal... bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 6.3 uname -a weirdness
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote: Hello. Due to the recent advisories, on an i386 6.3 box, i just did: cd /usr/src make update make buildworld make kernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL make installworld shutdown -r now Now uname -a reports 6.3p13, although cat /usr/src/UPDATING gives: ... 20091203: p14 FreeBSD-SA-09:15.ssl, FreeBSD-SA-09:17.freebsd-update Disable SSL renegotiation in order to protect against a serious protocol flaw. [09:15] Fix permissions in freebsd-update in order to prevent leakage of sensitive files. [09:17] ... I think the above does not affect the kernel; in fact I recompiled it just to be able to check the OS version with uname. Just curious on whether this is normal... bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org If you are using freebsd-update to keep your system up-to-date is normal. Unless updates apply to kernel it will keep the number of the last one who patch it. -- mmm, interesante. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 6.3 uname -a weirdness
Diego F. Arias R. ha scritto: If you are using freebsd-update to keep your system up-to-date is normal. Unless updates apply to kernel it will keep the number of the last one who patch it. As I said above, I did a source upgrade. bye Thanks av. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: 6.3 uname -a weirdness
On Thu 2009-12-03 14:46:26 UTC+0100, Andrea Venturoli (m...@netfence.it) wrote: Now uname -a reports 6.3p13, although cat /usr/src/UPDATING gives: ... 20091203: p14 FreeBSD-SA-09:15.ssl, FreeBSD-SA-09:17.freebsd-update Disable SSL renegotiation in order to protect against a serious protocol flaw. [09:15] Fix permissions in freebsd-update in order to prevent leakage of sensitive files. [09:17] ... From what I understand the version number compiled into the kernel is retrived from /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh at build time. Maybe one of the developers forgot to update this file to p14 for FreeBSD 6.3. Or perhaps newvers.sh is only updated when the kernel is modified. But the latter theory does not match my experience on the FreeBSD 7.2 machine I run here: 1:52 ozzmo...@blizzard [~]grep -v # /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh | head TYPE=FreeBSD REVISION=7.2 BRANCH=RELEASE-p5 ... Here, newvers.sh was modified only a few hours ago when I ran freebsd-update to upgrade from 7.2-REL-p4 to 7.2-REL-p5: 1:58 ozzmo...@blizzard [~]touch x 1:59 ozzmo...@blizzard [~]ls -l /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh x -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel3795 2009-12-03 21:24 /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh -rw-r--r-- 1 ozzmosis ozzmosis0 2009-12-04 01:59 x I think the above does not affect the kernel; Yes, I believe ihis is correct for the recent security patches for 7.2. I saw no kernel modifications (so presumably no need to reboot the machine). in fact I recompiled it just to be able to check the OS version with uname. Just curious on whether this is normal... I wonder if the FreeBSD developers would consider it worthwhile to make it a bit easier to find out what patch level the system is at. uname -a only reflects the kernel patch level. I don't think there's an unambiguous way to determine the userland patch level. Most Linux distros use /etc/issue. Maybe FreeBSD could have something like that. Regards Andrew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
The 'uname' output
I have wondered why my build number in the 'uname' output not is incrementet for each build I make of the system, it shows '#0' all the time. Example output of 'uname -a': FreeBSD mugin-LAN.localhost 8.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: Thu Jun 18 12:41:05 CEST 2009 r...@mugin-lan.localhost:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MUGIN i386 I had same issue on the system when I ran -STABLE. Just a little hint from someone will be appreciatet;-) -- Mvh/Brgds Harry FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT Compiled at Thu Jun 18 12:41:05 CEST 2009 i386 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The 'uname' output
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Harry Matthiesen Jensen typed: I have wondered why my build number in the 'uname' output not is incrementet for each build I make of the system, it shows '#0' all the time. Example output of 'uname -a': FreeBSD mugin-LAN.localhost 8.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: Thu Jun 18 12:41:05 CEST 2009 r...@mugin-lan.localhost:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MUGIN i386 I had same issue on the system when I ran -STABLE. Just a little hint from someone will be appreciatet;-) Do you remove /usr/obj between builds? Ruben ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The 'uname' output
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 03:09:57PM +0200, Ruben de Groot wrote: On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Harry Matthiesen Jensen typed: I have wondered why my build number in the 'uname' output not is incrementet for each build I make of the system, it shows '#0' all the time. Do you remove /usr/obj between builds? Ruben Yes, and going back in time, it match approximately when I started to clean /usr/obj hmmm, so I should stop that part of it when re-building? ..if I want my build number back. -- Mvh/Brgds Harry FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT Compiled at Thu Jun 18 12:41:05 CEST 2009 i386 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: The 'uname' output
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 03:31:38PM +0200, Harry Matthiesen Jensen wrote: I have wondered why my build number in the 'uname' output not is incrementet for each build I make of the system, it shows '#0' all the time. Do you remove /usr/obj between builds? Yes, and going back in time, it match approximately when I started to clean /usr/obj hmmm, so I should stop that part of it when Thanks Ruben, now it works ;-) -- Mvh/Brgds Harry FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #1: Compiled at Fri Jun 19 16:51:37 CEST 2009 i386 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source of uname information
Hi. I believe YES, based on [1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.b in/uname/uname.c?rev=1.14.28.1;content-type=text%2Fplain . See NATIVE_SYSCTL2_GET(version, CTL_KERN, KERN_VERSION), on source abov= e. I hope I've helped. Trober tro...@trober.com - - - - - - Mensagem Original - = De: [2]Robert Huff Para: [3]questi...@freebsd.org= /DIV Data: Quarta, 21 De Janeiro De 2009 = 03:26 Assunto: source of uname information = BRAm I correct in believing uname gets its information from the kern= .version sysctl? Robert Huff __= _ [4]freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org mailing list [5]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freeb sd.org References 1. file://localhost/tmp/3Dhtt 2. 3Dmailto:roberth...@rcn.com 3. 3Dmailto:questi...@freebsd.org; 4. 3Dmailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; 5. =http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions; ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source of uname information
Hi. I believe YES, based on [1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb. cgi/src/usr.bin/uname/uname.c?rev=1.14.28.1;content-type=3 Dtext= %2Fplain. See = NATIVE_SYSCTL2_GET(ver= sion, CTL_KERN, KERN_VERSION), on source above. I hope I've helpe= d. Trober tro...@trober.com - - - - - - Mensagem Original - = De: [2]Robert Huff Para: [3]questi...@freebsd.org= /DIV Data: Quarta, 21 De Janeiro De 2009 = 03:26 Assunto: source of uname information = BRAm I correct in believing uname gets its information from the kern= .version sysctl? Robert Huff __= _ [4]freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org mailing list [5]http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freeb sd.org References 1. file://localhost/tmp/3Dhtt 2. 3Dmailto:roberth...@rcn.com 3. 3Dmailto:questi...@freebsd.org; 4. 3Dmailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; 5. =http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions; ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source of uname information
Trober tro...@trober.com: Am I correct in believing uname gets its information from the kern.version sysctl? I believe YES, based on [1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/uname/uname.c See = NATIVE_SYSCTL2_GET(ver= sion, CTL_KERN, KERN_VERSION), on source above. I hope I've helped. It does. Next question: Can someone explain this: h...@jerusalem sysctl kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: Tue Jan 20 10:40:57 EST 2009 h...@jerusalem.litteratus.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/JERUSALEM h...@jerusalem uname -a FreeBSD jerusalem.litteratus.org 7.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #0: Tue Jan 20 10:40:57 EST 2009 h...@jerusalem.litteratus.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/JERUSALEM i386 Robert huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source of uname information
= Hi! kern.version is small part only of output uname command= . uname command concatane KERN_OSTYPE, KERN_HOSTNAME, KERN_OSRELEASE,nb= sp;KERN_VERSION (not in this order) to show output. I hope I've he= lped. Trober tro...@trober.com - - - - - - Mensagem Original - = De: [1]Robert Huff Para: [2]Trober Cc: [3]questi...@freebsd.org Data: Quarta, 21 De Janeiro De 2009 = 10:06 Assunto: Re: source of uname informa= tion Trober : Am I cor= rect in believing uname gets its information from the = nbsp;kern.version sysctl? I believe YES, ba= sed on [1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/s rc/usr.bin/uname/uname.c See = NATIVE_SY= SCTL2_GET(ver= sion, CTL_KERN, KERN_VERSION), on sou= rce above. I hope I've helped. It do= es. Next question: Can someone explain this: h...@jerusalem= gt; sysctl kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: = Tue Jan 20 10:40:57 EST 2009 h...@jerusalem.litterat us.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/JERUSALEM h...@jerusalem uname -a= BRFreeBSD jerusalem.litteratus.org 7.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT= #0: Tue Jan 20 10:40:57 EST 2009 h...@jerusalem. litteratus.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/JERUSALEM i386 Rober= t huff ___ [4]freebsd-questi...@fr= eebsd.org mailing list [5]http://lists.freebsd.o rg/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail = to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org References 1. 3Dmailto:roberth...@rcn.com 2. 3Dmailto:tro...@trober.com; 3. 3Dmailto:questi...@freebsd.org; 4. file://localhost/tmp/3D 5. 3Dhttp://lists.freebsd.org/mai___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source of uname information
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:06:50 -0500 Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com wrote: Can someone explain this: h...@jerusalem sysctl kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: Tue Jan 20 10:40:57 EST 2009 h...@jerusalem.litteratus.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/JERUSALEM h...@jerusalem uname -a FreeBSD jerusalem.litteratus.org 7.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #0: Do you have any UNAME_* variables set in the environment? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source of uname information
Hi! Wow! Good question! Sorry, I had not seen the difference between 7 and 8 in uname and sysctl output. Sorry. What your /usr/obj/usr/src/include/vers.h file say in: SCCSSTR VERSTR RELSTR char ostype char osrelease int osreldate kern_ident Thanks. Trober tro...@trober.com - - - - - - Mensagem Original - De: Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com Para: Trober tro...@trober.com Data: Quarta, 21 De Janeiro De 2009 10:39 Assunto: Re: source of uname information Trober writes: kern.version is small part only of output uname command. uname command concatane KERN_OSTYPE, KERN_HOSTNAME, KERN_OSRELEASE,nb= sp;KERN_VERSION (not in this order) to show output. The question is: Why do the sysctls say one thing, and uname another? Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source of uname information
Trober writes: What your /usr/obj/usr/src/include/vers.h file say in: No such file. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
source of uname information
Am I correct in believing uname gets its information from the kern.version sysctl? Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
On Mar 4, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: What about strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 6.2-RELEASE? Kris As I would expect, it returns nothing at all. Your problem makes no sense then :) The kern.osrelease returns a string compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it returns 6.2-RELEASE then that string must be present. Kris So, have you checked to make sure your uname is accurate and not just an echoing shell script of sorts? You never know, maybe someone hijacked your uname before you upgraded and the hijacked version wasn't written properly(which is odd since it's BSD licensed, where if it were GPL they'd have to release the code for their evil uname so can't use a GPL version). You could try greping over the entire filesystem for 6.2-RELEASE to find out where it could be coming from. Depending on the setup of your system, you could try zeroing all the spare blocks(I imagine `dd if=/dev/zero of=zero` would do the trick) and then seeing if the string's from some really hidden file. So many ways to have fun, but I don't want to be in your shoes. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 10:11:42 Joshua Isom wrote: On Mar 4, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: What about strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 6.2-RELEASE? Kris As I would expect, it returns nothing at all. Your problem makes no sense then :) The kern.osrelease returns a string compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it returns 6.2-RELEASE then that string must be present. Kris So, have you checked to make sure your uname is accurate and not just an echoing shell script of sorts? You never know, maybe someone hijacked your uname before you upgraded and the hijacked version wasn't written properly(which is odd since it's BSD licensed, where if it were GPL they'd have to release the code for their evil uname so can't use a GPL version). Then sysctl would be a shell script too. The only way I can see this happening, is that /boot at loader time, is not the same /boot after kernel is loaded. For this reason, it would be nice if kern.bootfile would list ad0s1a:/boot/kernel/kernel. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: snip I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was released, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Thank you and Phillip for answering my post. However, I've done this 3 times now, and I don't skip that step. There have been no errors in the process, either. I've rebooted the system, and I'm still being told I'm running 6.2 by uname. In addition, pkg_add thinks I should be looking for 6-latest packages instead of 7, and the list of annoyances continues. And, hmm, symbols? I'm guessing that knob is ON in FBSD7? Once again, proof that something's wrong, as I didn't build debugging kernels in FBSD6 ... so I'm thinking this is a 7 kernel? It just doesn't make sense to me. It *is* a Monday, after all. If installkernel didn't succeed, shouldn't there be any other evidence? Could skipping a mergemaster at some point have this effect? Possibly you have 6.x sources still. Or you are not actually booting /boot/kernel/kernel but some other kernel. Check sysctl kern.bootfile. You can also do strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 7.0-RELEASE to verify the kernel version string. #sysctl kern.bootfile kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel #strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 0-RELEASE @(#)FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 7.0-RELEASE #ls -l /boot/kernel/kernel -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9294687 Feb 28 12:22 /boot/kernel/kernel* Well, fudging around with uname's source shows that it's basically calling some sysctls, so maybe the question is, with what I have above, why do I still have: sysctl -a | grep kern.osre kern.osrelease: 6.2-RELEASE kern.osrevision: 199506 kern.osreldate: 602000 You rebooted, right? :) Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: snip I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was released, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Thank you and Phillip for answering my post. However, I've done this 3 times now, and I don't skip that step. There have been no errors in the process, either. I've rebooted the system, and I'm still being told I'm running 6.2 by uname. In addition, pkg_add thinks I should be looking for 6-latest packages instead of 7, and the list of annoyances continues. And, hmm, symbols? I'm guessing that knob is ON in FBSD7? Once again, proof that something's wrong, as I didn't build debugging kernels in FBSD6 ... so I'm thinking this is a 7 kernel? It just doesn't make sense to me. It *is* a Monday, after all. If installkernel didn't succeed, shouldn't there be any other evidence? Could skipping a mergemaster at some point have this effect? Possibly you have 6.x sources still. Or you are not actually booting /boot/kernel/kernel but some other kernel. Check sysctl kern.bootfile. You can also do strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 7.0-RELEASE to verify the kernel version string. #sysctl kern.bootfile kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel #strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 0-RELEASE @(#)FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 7.0-RELEASE #ls -l /boot/kernel/kernel -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9294687 Feb 28 12:22 /boot/kernel/kernel* Well, fudging around with uname's source shows that it's basically calling some sysctls, so maybe the question is, with what I have above, why do I still have: sysctl -a | grep kern.osre kern.osrelease: 6.2-RELEASE kern.osrevision: 199506 kern.osreldate: 602000 You rebooted, right? :) Kris Yes, sir! Every time I do it, and then some. ;-) At this moment, whilst building Yet Another Kernel(tm): #uptime 7:13AM up 15:30, 3 users, load averages: 0.97, 0.37, 0.14 That would've been yesterday's reboot to install the kernel I remade after Phillip's first response in this thread; or, perhaps the one when I replaced the re(4) NIC when it stopped working for unknown reasons (but, eh, with this issue, seems nothing is guaranteed to escape). Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: snip I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was released, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Thank you and Phillip for answering my post. However, I've done this 3 times now, and I don't skip that step. There have been no errors in the process, either. I've rebooted the system, and I'm still being told I'm running 6.2 by uname. In addition, pkg_add thinks I should be looking for 6-latest packages instead of 7, and the list of annoyances continues. And, hmm, symbols? I'm guessing that knob is ON in FBSD7? Once again, proof that something's wrong, as I didn't build debugging kernels in FBSD6 ... so I'm thinking this is a 7 kernel? It just doesn't make sense to me. It *is* a Monday, after all. If installkernel didn't succeed, shouldn't there be any other evidence? Could skipping a mergemaster at some point have this effect? Possibly you have 6.x sources still. Or you are not actually booting /boot/kernel/kernel but some other kernel. Check sysctl kern.bootfile. You can also do strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 7.0-RELEASE to verify the kernel version string. #sysctl kern.bootfile kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel #strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 0-RELEASE @(#)FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 7.0-RELEASE #ls -l /boot/kernel/kernel -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9294687 Feb 28 12:22 /boot/kernel/kernel* Well, fudging around with uname's source shows that it's basically calling some sysctls, so maybe the question is, with what I have above, why do I still have: sysctl -a | grep kern.osre kern.osrelease: 6.2-RELEASE kern.osrevision: 199506 kern.osreldate: 602000 ?? What about strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 6.2-RELEASE ? Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: snip I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was released, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Thank you and Phillip for answering my post. However, I've done this 3 times now, and I don't skip that step. There have been no errors in the process, either. I've rebooted the system, and I'm still being told I'm running 6.2 by uname. In addition, pkg_add thinks I should be looking for 6-latest packages instead of 7, and the list of annoyances continues. And, hmm, symbols? I'm guessing that knob is ON in FBSD7? Once again, proof that something's wrong, as I didn't build debugging kernels in FBSD6 ... so I'm thinking this is a 7 kernel? It just doesn't make sense to me. It *is* a Monday, after all. If installkernel didn't succeed, shouldn't there be any other evidence? Could skipping a mergemaster at some point have this effect? Possibly you have 6.x sources still. Or you are not actually booting /boot/kernel/kernel but some other kernel. Check sysctl kern.bootfile. You can also do strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 7.0-RELEASE to verify the kernel version string. #sysctl kern.bootfile kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel #strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 0-RELEASE @(#)FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 7.0-RELEASE #ls -l /boot/kernel/kernel -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9294687 Feb 28 12:22 /boot/kernel/kernel* Well, fudging around with uname's source shows that it's basically calling some sysctls, so maybe the question is, with what I have above, why do I still have: sysctl -a | grep kern.osre kern.osrelease: 6.2-RELEASE kern.osrevision: 199506 kern.osreldate: 602000 What about strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 6.2-RELEASE? Kris As I would expect, it returns nothing at all. Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: snip I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was released, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Thank you and Phillip for answering my post. However, I've done this 3 times now, and I don't skip that step. There have been no errors in the process, either. I've rebooted the system, and I'm still being told I'm running 6.2 by uname. In addition, pkg_add thinks I should be looking for 6-latest packages instead of 7, and the list of annoyances continues. And, hmm, symbols? I'm guessing that knob is ON in FBSD7? Once again, proof that something's wrong, as I didn't build debugging kernels in FBSD6 ... so I'm thinking this is a 7 kernel? It just doesn't make sense to me. It *is* a Monday, after all. If installkernel didn't succeed, shouldn't there be any other evidence? Could skipping a mergemaster at some point have this effect? Possibly you have 6.x sources still. Or you are not actually booting /boot/kernel/kernel but some other kernel. Check sysctl kern.bootfile. You can also do strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 7.0-RELEASE to verify the kernel version string. #sysctl kern.bootfile kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel #strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 0-RELEASE @(#)FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 7.0-RELEASE #ls -l /boot/kernel/kernel -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9294687 Feb 28 12:22 /boot/kernel/kernel* Well, fudging around with uname's source shows that it's basically calling some sysctls, so maybe the question is, with what I have above, why do I still have: sysctl -a | grep kern.osre kern.osrelease: 6.2-RELEASE kern.osrevision: 199506 kern.osreldate: 602000 What about strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 6.2-RELEASE? Kris As I would expect, it returns nothing at all. Your problem makes no sense then :) The kern.osrelease returns a string compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it returns 6.2-RELEASE then that string must be present. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Your problem makes no sense then :) Up until now, you've told me a couple things I might not have already known :-D The kern.osrelease returns a string compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it returns 6.2-RELEASE then that string must be present. I'd like to think so, but, I don't. If you've feeling masochistic, you can see that evidence below. When does the sysctl get set? During boot, I assume? Is there any caching of sysctl data that might persist over a reboot? Even better, have I been [EMAIL PROTECTED] lol. Be the first time in forever, but I've griped and griped to my ISP about the security of their CPE, to no avail. Being as named is now crapping out (bad system call), I'm thinking I'll try a Windows solution (not that I'd consider using a Winbox here, but I may backup the data, wipe the disk, and try again) unless lightning strikes and I figure it out pretty soon. Fortunately, this isn't a mission-critical BIND server. I do need to get httpd/PHP back up, tho, because it's hard to print HTML invoices for February when you can't serve HTML ;-) The system's so unstable I'm not sure I wanna waste any more time fighting with it at this point. Kevin Kinsey #sysctl kern.bootfile kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel #strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep -i bsd freebsd6_ftruncate freebsd4_fhstatfs freebsd4_sendfile sysctl__security_bsd_children bsd_partition_le_dec bsd_partition_le_enc freebsd4_sigaction freebsd4_statfs freebsd6_lseek elf32_freebsd_fixup bsd_disklabel_le_dec elf32_freebsd_sysvec freebsd6_mmap freebsd6_pwrite freebsd6_truncate szfreebsd4_sigcode bsd_disklabel_le_enc freebsd4_fstatfs freebsd6_pread freebsd4_getfsstat freebsd4_sigreturn openbsd_poll FreeBSD FreeBSD FreeBSD PseudoRAID FreeBSD ATA driver RAID FreeBSD check1 failed WARNING!! - Using FreeBSD PseudoRAID metadata FBSD [EMAIL PROTECTED] Warning: card matches multiple entries. Report to [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Project /usr/src/sys/dev/isp/isp_freebsd.c Qlogic ISP Driver, FreeBSD Version %d.%d, Core Version %d.%d FreeBSD WaveLAN/IEEE node bsd_taste(%s,%s) BSD::labelsum g_bsd freebsd freebsd-swap freebsd-ufs freebsd-vinum freebsd-zfs security.bsd.suser_enabled BSD security policy /usr/src/sys/kern/sched_4bsd.c 4BSD FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: %d CPUs KAME-BSD 1.1 TrustedBSD audit controls FreeBSD Kernel Dump FreeBSD ELF32 freebsd4_sigreturn: eflags = 0x%x freebsd4_sigreturn: cs = 0x%x minidump FreeBSD/i386 Adaptec FreeBSD 4.0.0 Unix SCSI I2O HBA Driver 2FREEBSD LSI-LOGIC NULDEV0001 Copyright (c) 1992-2008 The FreeBSD Project. FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation. @(#)FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #0: Tue Mar 4 07:26:00 CST 2008 FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #0: Tue Mar 4 07:26:00 CST 2008 FreeBSD #strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep -i release|more module_release mmcbr_release_host_desc bus_release_resource_desc bus_generic_release_resource amr_releasecmd hptrr_ldm_release_vbus isa_dma_release gdt_mpr_release_event isp_mbox_release sctp_release_pr_sctp_chunk bus_release_resources an_release_resources pcib_release_msi xpt_release_ccb ed_release_resources mmcbus_release_bus_method_default aac_release_command hptrr_ldm_release_lock bus_generic_rl_release_resource pcib_release_msi_method_default sbrelease pci_release_msi_method_default fdc_release_resources xpt_release_devq msi_release pcib_release_msix_desc ahc_release_seeprom xpt_release_simq nlminfo_release_p hptrr_ldm_release_vdev mmcbus_release_bus_desc ata_pci_release_resource ahd_release_seeprom agp_release cam_periph_release scsi_reserve_release_unit linker_release_module msix_release ie_release_resources release_timer2 rman_release_resource isa_release_resource kbd_release mmcbr_release_host_method_default pcib_release_msi_desc vid_release ppb_release_bus pmap_release sleepq_release ex_release_resources cbb_release_resource fe_release_resource pcib_release_msix_method_default pci_release_msi_desc bus_release_resource mfi_release_command dpt_release_resources pcib_release_msix osrelease cam_release_devq e1000_release_nvm_generic sbrelease_locked bus_release_resource_method_default pci_release_msi_method cs_release_resources stg_release_resource softdep_releasefile resource_list_release e1000_release_nvm kse_release Invalid release of active persistent reservation RELEASE(06) RELEASE ELEMENT(06) RELEASE(10 RELEASE ELEMENT(10) LQIRetry for LQICRCI_LQ to release ACK already released dma memory Release ioctl lock twa_ioctl: RELEASE_LOCK: Lock not held! RELEASE_LOCK: Releasing lock! vendor=0x%04x product=0x%04x devclass=0x%02x devsubclass=0x%02x release=0x%04x sernum=%s vendor=0x%04x product=0x%04x devclass=0x%02x devsubclass=0x%02x release=0x%04x sernum=%s intclass=0x%02x intsubclass=0x%02x kse_release: called outside of threading. exiting Kernel release date osrelease Operating system release module_release: bad reference count resource_list_delete: resource has not been released resource_list_release: can't find
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kevin Kinsey wrote: Your problem makes no sense then :) Up until now, you've told me a couple things I might not have already known :-D The kern.osrelease returns a string compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it returns 6.2-RELEASE then that string must be present. I'd like to think so, but, I don't. If you've feeling masochistic, you can see that evidence below. When does the sysctl get set? The string is set at kernel compile time and the sysctl that points to it is read-only. During boot, I assume? Is there any caching of sysctl data that might persist over a reboot? Even better, have I been [EMAIL PROTECTED] lol. Be the first time in forever, but I've griped and griped to my ISP about the security of their CPE, to no avail. It is possible, I guess it makes more sense than anything else. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:40:56 -0600 Kevin Kinsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being as named is now crapping out (bad system call), I'm thinking I'll try a Windows solution (not that I'd consider using a Winbox here, but I may backup the data, wipe the disk, and try again) unless lightning strikes and I figure it out pretty soon. Fortunately, this isn't a mission-critical BIND server. I do need to get httpd/PHP back up, tho, because it's hard to print HTML invoices for February when you can't serve HTML ;-) The system's so unstable I'm not sure I wanna waste any more time fighting with it at this point. I concur; when the time to diagnose and correct a problem exceeds the amount of time to simply start over, I would definitely choose to start over fresh. Besides getting a potentially more stable system, you will also effectively remove a lot of debris that you probably no longer need. I have been in the same situation a few times and it just seemed like a more logical action to take. -- Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] God must have loved calories, she made so many of them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Uname borked on ??-Release...
Hello,
Been bashing myself on the head for a few days, so I'm
looking for a little help. If you've a big stick, read
on (and apologies if poor formatting, I'm using an unfamiliar
keyboard, unfamiliar mailer, and I'm not even sure if this
system is running FreeBSD anymore :-D )
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues,
twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This
didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit.
So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped
to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was release, read
/usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the
upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle.
Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like
7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them
all), and it's just becoming a major PITA.
Uname -a still shows the same string. However,
file dates in /bin, /sbin, etc., are Feb 28, and:
#cd /bin file grep
grep: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD),
for FreeBSD 7.0 (700055), dynamically linked (uses shared libs),
FreeBSD-style, stripped
Manpages also show FreeBSD 7.0.
Trivia:
I blew away /usr/src and /usr/obj before the last
buildworld. They are not symlinked now, but apparently
were back last summer; /usr is at /dev/ad0s1e.
I've not yet done any of the old-libs commands; I do
have lots of ports failing with Bad system call and
I've got a lot of ports that wouldn't build because
configure was failing (C compiler cannot create
executables). There's more, but I'll wait until
something moves with this data, I think.
Question: why is uname reporting the {wrong} build?
Kevin Kinsey
--
I despise the pleasure of pleasing people whom I despise.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Question: why is uname reporting the {wrong} build?
cd /usr/src
sudo make installkernel
--
Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
o:703.549.2050x206
Senior System Admin - Riderway, Inc.
http://riderway.com / http://ridecharge.com
1024D/EC88A0BF 0DE5 C55C 6BF3 B235 2DAB B89E 1324 9B4F EC88 A0BF
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kevin Kinsey wrote: Hello, Been bashing myself on the head for a few days, so I'm looking for a little help. If you've a big stick, read on (and apologies if poor formatting, I'm using an unfamiliar keyboard, unfamiliar mailer, and I'm not even sure if this system is running FreeBSD anymore :-D ) I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was release, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: snip I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was released, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Kris Thank you and Phillip for answering my post. However, I've done this 3 times now, and I don't skip that step. There have been no errors in the process, either. AAMOF, in response to Phillip's mail, I just did it again, as you can see (z* is to omit snipping): ll /boot/kernel/z* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 712006 Mar 3 15:16 /boot/kernel/zfs.ko* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 3471592 Mar 3 15:16 /boot/kernel/zfs.ko.symbols* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel38175 Mar 3 15:16 /boot/kernel/zlib.ko* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel58834 Mar 3 15:16 /boot/kernel/zlib.ko.symbols* I've rebooted the system, and I'm still being told I'm running 6.2 by uname. In addition, pkg_add thinks I should be looking for 6-latest packages instead of 7, and the list of annoyances continues. And, hmm, symbols? I'm guessing that knob is ON in FBSD7? Once again, proof that something's wrong, as I didn't build debugging kernels in FBSD6 ... so I'm thinking this is a 7 kernel? It just doesn't make sense to me. It *is* a Monday, after all. If installkernel didn't succeed, shouldn't there be any other evidence? Could skipping a mergemaster at some point have this effect? (I don't *always* do that, unless I'm making a pretty big move, and the first build cycle was production code IIRC) What about issues with newvers.sh (or whatever it is?) Any other think-outside-the-box stuff? What could cause an installkernel operation to fail but appear to succeed? KDK -- I just rewrote my .sig. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kevin Kinsey wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: Kevin Kinsey wrote: snip I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was released, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Kris Thank you and Phillip for answering my post. However, I've done this 3 times now, and I don't skip that step. There have been no errors in the process, either. AAMOF, in response to Phillip's mail, I just did it again, as you can see (z* is to omit snipping): ll /boot/kernel/z* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 712006 Mar 3 15:16 /boot/kernel/zfs.ko* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 3471592 Mar 3 15:16 /boot/kernel/zfs.ko.symbols* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel38175 Mar 3 15:16 /boot/kernel/zlib.ko* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel58834 Mar 3 15:16 /boot/kernel/zlib.ko.symbols* I've rebooted the system, and I'm still being told I'm running 6.2 by uname. In addition, pkg_add thinks I should be looking for 6-latest packages instead of 7, and the list of annoyances continues. And, hmm, symbols? I'm guessing that knob is ON in FBSD7? Once again, proof that something's wrong, as I didn't build debugging kernels in FBSD6 ... so I'm thinking this is a 7 kernel? It just doesn't make sense to me. It *is* a Monday, after all. If installkernel didn't succeed, shouldn't there be any other evidence? Could skipping a mergemaster at some point have this effect? (I don't *always* do that, unless I'm making a pretty big move, and the first build cycle was production code IIRC) What about issues with newvers.sh (or whatever it is?) Any other think-outside-the-box stuff? What could cause an installkernel operation to fail but appear to succeed? Possibly you have 6.x sources still. Or you are not actually booting /boot/kernel/kernel but some other kernel. Check sysctl kern.bootfile. You can also do strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 7.0-RELEASE to verify the kernel version string. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Uname borked on ??-Release...
Kris Kennaway wrote: snip I get the following from uname -a: FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6: Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386 However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues, twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This didn't change uname's output, and that worried me a bit. So, to make matters bette^H^H^H^Hadder, I csup'ped to RELENG_7_0 the day after it was released, read /usr/src/UPDATING, and the webpage detailing the upgrade, and did another buildworld/kernel cycle. Now I have no idea if I'm on 6 or 7 (seems like 7, but many ports issues, and I've rebuilt them all), and it's just becoming a major PITA. You didnt succeed in installing the new kernel. 'make installkernel' is the step in which this occurs. Thank you and Phillip for answering my post. However, I've done this 3 times now, and I don't skip that step. There have been no errors in the process, either. I've rebooted the system, and I'm still being told I'm running 6.2 by uname. In addition, pkg_add thinks I should be looking for 6-latest packages instead of 7, and the list of annoyances continues. And, hmm, symbols? I'm guessing that knob is ON in FBSD7? Once again, proof that something's wrong, as I didn't build debugging kernels in FBSD6 ... so I'm thinking this is a 7 kernel? It just doesn't make sense to me. It *is* a Monday, after all. If installkernel didn't succeed, shouldn't there be any other evidence? Could skipping a mergemaster at some point have this effect? Possibly you have 6.x sources still. Or you are not actually booting /boot/kernel/kernel but some other kernel. Check sysctl kern.bootfile. You can also do strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 7.0-RELEASE to verify the kernel version string. #sysctl kern.bootfile kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel #strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 0-RELEASE @(#)FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE #1: Thu Feb 28 12:22:38 CST 2008 7.0-RELEASE #ls -l /boot/kernel/kernel -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9294687 Feb 28 12:22 /boot/kernel/kernel* Well, fudging around with uname's source shows that it's basically calling some sysctls, so maybe the question is, with what I have above, why do I still have: sysctl -a | grep kern.osre kern.osrelease: 6.2-RELEASE kern.osrevision: 199506 kern.osreldate: 602000 ?? Thanks in advance, Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changing the output of uname -m or -p
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:03:42 +0100 Kris Kennaway wrote: Can this even be done and if so how? See the manpage, and the UNAME_* variables. One other thing: Will that change the way the system reacts in any way? Apps should run normally (well, a browser may give a wrong plattform information but that should be it). But what happens if you try to compile something? Will a wrong plattform or CPU variable screw up what the compiler spits out? Could be rather unhealthy if the compiler optimizes code for a sun4u on an i386. :-) Regards, Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changing the output of uname -m or -p
Christian Baer wrote: On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:03:42 +0100 Kris Kennaway wrote: Can this even be done and if so how? See the manpage, and the UNAME_* variables. One other thing: Will that change the way the system reacts in any way? Apps should run normally (well, a browser may give a wrong plattform information but that should be it). But what happens if you try to compile something? Will a wrong plattform or CPU variable screw up what the compiler spits out? Could be rather unhealthy if the compiler optimizes code for a sun4u on an i386. :-) It will confuse some things, yes. e.g. buildworld and ports, and maybe some things at runtime. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changing the output of uname -m or -p
Hello Folks! This may be a bit of a hacker's question, but I'll just go for it in here - at least for starters. I want to play a prank on a friend of mine. He does a csup at least once a day and also makes a new world at least once a day. He is pretty nutty about that which is ok for some -CURRENT system, but he also does that on production systems. Now I don't want to judge him about that, but he is a bit sensitive about the output of uname. The version is very important to him. :-) The prank I want to pull is to somehow change the output of uname -m to read something different. The best thing would be to change that to something ancient like C-64, i286, i8086. Or, if only plattforms that FreeBSD supports are allowed, then mips, alpha or sparc64 on an i386. That should keep him thinking for a while. :-) I don't want to do any damage, so I just want to screw up the output of uname and the system should work normally apart from that. I realise that I may have to change some of the OS's code and that's not a problem. I just don't know where to look for this kind of thing and I don't really want to do too much reading just for a little prank. This guy is a really good friend of mine but sometimes get up my neck because I am much more conservative about updating my production systems. As you can see on this machine, I go along the lines of RELENG_6_2 which he can't understand. This should buy me a little peace and quite for a week or two. Getting access to his machines is no problem as I am often at his place. Can this even be done and if so how? Regards, Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changing the output of uname -m or -p
Christian Baer wrote: Hello Folks! This may be a bit of a hacker's question, but I'll just go for it in here - at least for starters. I want to play a prank on a friend of mine. He does a csup at least once a day and also makes a new world at least once a day. He is pretty nutty about that which is ok for some -CURRENT system, but he also does that on production systems. Now I don't want to judge him about that, but he is a bit sensitive about the output of uname. The version is very important to him. :-) The prank I want to pull is to somehow change the output of uname -m to read something different. The best thing would be to change that to something ancient like C-64, i286, i8086. Or, if only plattforms that FreeBSD supports are allowed, then mips, alpha or sparc64 on an i386. That should keep him thinking for a while. :-) I don't want to do any damage, so I just want to screw up the output of uname and the system should work normally apart from that. I realise that I may have to change some of the OS's code and that's not a problem. I just don't know where to look for this kind of thing and I don't really want to do too much reading just for a little prank. This guy is a really good friend of mine but sometimes get up my neck because I am much more conservative about updating my production systems. As you can see on this machine, I go along the lines of RELENG_6_2 which he can't understand. This should buy me a little peace and quite for a week or two. Getting access to his machines is no problem as I am often at his place. Can this even be done and if so how? See the manpage, and the UNAME_* variables. Kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Changing the output of uname -m or -p
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:03:42 +0100 Kris Kennaway wrote: Can this even be done and if so how? See the manpage, and the UNAME_* variables. I already did that once and it didn't work out. I just found the reason: I'm too thick. :-/ I though all the letters had to be capitals, so I set UNAME_M instead of UNAME_m. The days my brain leaves me... :-) Thanks for the help! Regards, Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
freebsd-update port uname/internal patch level mismatch
Hi, I noticed that using freebsd-update on a freshly installed 6.2-RELEASE system yielded the following mismatch: $ uname -vp FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p4 #0: Thu Apr 26 17:55:55 UTC 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 The results of running a freebsd-update fetch give: zcnew# freebsd-update fetch Looking up update.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 1 mirrors found. Fetching metadata signature from update1.FreeBSD.org... done. Fetching metadata index... done. Inspecting system... done. Preparing to download files... done. No updates needed to update system to 6.2-RELEASE-p8. So uname says -p4 and freebsd-update says -p8 I know -p8 is correct. The kernel was last patched in -p4 so maybe the uname information isn't updated if the kernel isn't updated...? If there is something I'm doing wrong, please let me know. Thank you. Vinny ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freebsd-update port uname/internal patch level mismatch
Vinny wrote: Hi, I noticed that using freebsd-update on a freshly installed 6.2-RELEASE system yielded the following mismatch: $ uname -vp FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p4 #0: Thu Apr 26 17:55:55 UTC 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 The results of running a freebsd-update fetch give: zcnew# freebsd-update fetch Looking up update.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 1 mirrors found. Fetching metadata signature from update1.FreeBSD.org... done. Fetching metadata index... done. Inspecting system... done. Preparing to download files... done. No updates needed to update system to 6.2-RELEASE-p8. So uname says -p4 and freebsd-update says -p8 I know -p8 is correct. The kernel was last patched in -p4 so maybe the uname information isn't updated if the kernel isn't updated...? Exactly. But if you are willing to rebuild the kernel yourself (this is not a difficult process) you will get -p8 in uname too. If there is something I'm doing wrong, please let me know. Thank you. Vinny Manolis ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the #-number from uname -a?
In the last episode (Apr 15), Pieter de Goeje said: On Sunday 15 April 2007, Dan Nelson wrote: In the last episode (Apr 15), Roger Olofsson said: Yesterday I csup:ed 2 machines to latest using same cvsup-server for both. After the standard procedure of doing: make buildworld make buildkernel make installkernel reboot make installworld ..on both machines, one says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2' and the other says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #6'. What does the number after the #-sign mean? It's the number of times you have rebuilt your kernel. The value is stored in /usr/src/sys/arch/kernelname/version. I think you meant /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/kernelname/version. If you wipe /usr/obj, the number will be reset. Actually, I meant /usr/src/sys/arch/compile/kernelname/version since I still build my kernels the old way. It also means that the version file never gets deleted. After ~10 years on this filesystem, I'm up to #434 :) -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the #-number from uname -a?
Dear Mailing List, Yesterday I csup:ed 2 machines to latest using same cvsup-server for both. After the standard procedure of doing: make buildworld make buildkernel make installkernel reboot make installworld ..on both machines, one says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2' and the other says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #6'. What does the number after the #-sign mean? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the #-number from uname -a?
In the last episode (Apr 15), Roger Olofsson said: Yesterday I csup:ed 2 machines to latest using same cvsup-server for both. After the standard procedure of doing: make buildworld make buildkernel make installkernel reboot make installworld ..on both machines, one says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2' and the other says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #6'. What does the number after the #-sign mean? It's the number of times you have rebuilt your kernel. The value is stored in /usr/src/sys/arch/kernelname/version. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the #-number from uname -a?
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Dan Nelson wrote: In the last episode (Apr 15), Roger Olofsson said: Yesterday I csup:ed 2 machines to latest using same cvsup-server for both. After the standard procedure of doing: make buildworld make buildkernel make installkernel reboot make installworld ..on both machines, one says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2' and the other says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #6'. What does the number after the #-sign mean? It's the number of times you have rebuilt your kernel. The value is stored in /usr/src/sys/arch/kernelname/version. I think you meant /usr/obj/usr/src/sys/kernelname/version. If you wipe /usr/obj, the number will be reset. Cheers, Pieter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the #-number from uname -a?
Dan Nelson writes: ..on both machines, one says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2' and the other says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #6'. What does the number after the #-sign mean? It's the number of times you have rebuilt your kernel. ... with that particular kernel code base. Robert Huff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uname question after update
I have two boxes I've updated so far to 6.2. uname -a returns two different strings: FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 What does the #0 / #4 mean? -- Jay Chandler Network Administrator, Chapman University 714.628.7249 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's Excuse: emissions from GSM-phones ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:37:19AM -0800, Jay Chandler wrote: I have two boxes I've updated so far to 6.2. uname -a returns two different strings: FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 What does the #0 / #4 mean? The number of times you have recompiled your kernel. Kris pgplfEQ9ZsDJ6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: uname question after update
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:37:19AM -0800, Jay Chandler wrote: I have two boxes I've updated so far to 6.2. uname -a returns two different strings: FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 What does the #0 / #4 mean? The number of times you have recompiled your kernel. Kris Thank you, Kris. *smacks forehead* Monday morning indeed... -- Jay Chandler Network Administrator, Chapman University 714.628.7249 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's Excuse: emissions from GSM-phones ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Jay Chandler wrote: FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/ src/sys/SMP i386 FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/ sys/SMP i386 What does the #0 / #4 mean? The number of times you have rebuilt the kernel. (This number gets reset when the OS version gets bumped, I believe.) -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Jay Chandler wrote: FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 What does the #0 / #4 mean? The number of times you have rebuilt the kernel. (This number gets reset when the OS version gets bumped, I believe.) ---Chuck Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way? -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
On 1/15/07, Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Jay Chandler wrote: FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 What does the #0 / #4 mean? The number of times you have rebuilt the kernel. (This number gets reset when the OS version gets bumped, I believe.) ---Chuck Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way? -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is not new. -- The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
On Monday 15 January 2007 21:37, Jay Chandler wrote: I have two boxes I've updated so far to 6.2. uname -a returns two different strings: FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386 What does the #0 / #4 mean? how many times kernel 'SMP' was compiled on this box. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:43:52AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: [...] Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way? -Garrett That's not new, it's been around for more than a decade. You can `disable' it by cleaning out the kernel build directory prior to building a new kernel. -- Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
On Jan 15, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: The number of times you have rebuilt the kernel. (This number gets reset when the OS version gets bumped, I believe.) ---Chuck Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way? This feature, whatever you might think of it, isn't new. :-) But yes, it could be disabled; see /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh and the number kept in /usr/obj/usr/src/include/version. Delete /usr/obj/ usr/src/include/version between kernel recompiles and you will always get a version # of 0. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
Jonathan Chen wrote: On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:43:52AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: [...] Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way? -Garrett That's not new, it's been around for more than a decade. You can `disable' it by cleaning out the kernel build directory prior to building a new kernel. Oh, duh. I didn't realize that that occurred every time I cleaned up prior to a kernel compile . Thanks! -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
On 15 янв. 2007, at 21:43, Garrett Cooper wrote: Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Jay Chandler wrote: FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/ src/sys/SMP i386 FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/ src/sys/SMP i386 What does the #0 / #4 mean? The number of times you have rebuilt the kernel. (This number gets reset when the OS version gets bumped, I believe.) ---Chuck Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way? This is not a 'new' feature. This was so for very long time. You can also reset the number by cleaning out /usr/obj directory. Version file vers.c is generated by src/sys/conf/newvers.sh script. You can hack this script for it not to increase kernel number. -- AIM-UANIC | AIM-RIPE +-[ FreeBSD ]-+ Alexander Mogilny | The Power to Serve! | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-+ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname question after update
Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jan 15, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: The number of times you have rebuilt the kernel. (This number gets reset when the OS version gets bumped, I believe.) ---Chuck Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way? This feature, whatever you might think of it, isn't new. :-) But yes, it could be disabled; see /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh and the number kept in /usr/obj/usr/src/include/version. Delete /usr/obj/usr/src/include/version between kernel recompiles and you will always get a version # of 0. ---Chuck Oh, wait. I thought that the 2 version strings were concatenated, but after looking at the original post the guy noted that uname -a was invoked on 2 different machines. Duh. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
patches and uname -a
Hello. Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list. After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly reports the current version of the system Today for the first time I applied all the relevant patches instead and all went well. The box was 5.3-RELEASE-p23. The applied patches should correspond to 5.3-RELEASE-p24, but: # uname -r 5.3-RELEASE-p23 and: # sysctl kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p23 #0: Tue Jan 3 15:40:08 CET 2006 ... I'd like to be able to see the correct version using 'uname -r'.. Does anybody know how can you make uname report the real version? What if you recompile the kernel after patching the system? Would that do the trick? Thank you and best regards. -- Robi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patches and uname -a
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Does anybody know how can you make uname report the real version? What if you recompile the kernel after patching the system? Would that do the trick? As far as I know, uname gets the version information from the kernel. So yes, if you recompile the kernel, you should be able to get the right version displayed. Yours, Jaap Boender ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patches and uname -a
Thank you Ceri and Jaap for your time. Ceri, edit src/sys/conf/newvers.sh and replace BRANCH=RELEASE-p23 with BRANCH=RELEASE-p24 would be enough?? Best regards. Ceri Davies wrote: On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:32, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Hello. Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list. After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly reports the current version of the system Today for the first time I applied all the relevant patches instead and all went well. The box was 5.3-RELEASE-p23. The applied patches should correspond to 5.3-RELEASE-p24, but: # uname -r 5.3-RELEASE-p23 and: # sysctl kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p23 #0: Tue Jan 3 15:40:08 CET 2006 ... I'd like to be able to see the correct version using 'uname -r'.. Does anybody know how can you make uname report the real version? What if you recompile the kernel after patching the system? Would that do the trick? Recompiling the kernel is the correct way to change the output of uname(1), but before you do so, you should be aware that that patch number is taken from the BRANCH variable in src/sys/conf/newvers.sh. Check that it says 5.3-RELEASE-p24 before you waste time recompiling the kernel. Ceri ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patches and uname -a
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:26:22PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Ceri Davies wrote: On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:32, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Hello. Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list. After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly reports the current version of the system Today for the first time I applied all the relevant patches instead and all went well. The box was 5.3-RELEASE-p23. The applied patches should correspond to 5.3-RELEASE-p24, but: # uname -r 5.3-RELEASE-p23 and: # sysctl kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p23 #0: Tue Jan 3 15:40:08 CET 2006 ... I'd like to be able to see the correct version using 'uname -r'.. Does anybody know how can you make uname report the real version? What if you recompile the kernel after patching the system? Would that do the trick? Recompiling the kernel is the correct way to change the output of uname(1), but before you do so, you should be aware that that patch number is taken from the BRANCH variable in src/sys/conf/newvers.sh. Check that it says 5.3-RELEASE-p24 before you waste time recompiling the kernel. Ceri Thank you Ceri and Jaap for your time. Ceri, edit src/sys/conf/newvers.sh and replace BRANCH=RELEASE-p23 with BRANCH=RELEASE-p24 would be enough?? That would work, but if you don't already have that string then there is a possibility that you don't have all the patches, so please only change it if you are %100 sure that you have. I cannot stress that enough. Ceri -- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-- Einstein (attrib.) pgpMxFDz5vO8j.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: {Spam?} Re: patches and uname -a
Ceri Davies wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:26:22PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Ceri Davies wrote: On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:32, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Hello. Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list. After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly reports the current version of the system Today for the first time I applied all the relevant patches instead and all went well. The box was 5.3-RELEASE-p23. The applied patches should correspond to 5.3-RELEASE-p24, but: # uname -r 5.3-RELEASE-p23 and: # sysctl kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p23 #0: Tue Jan 3 15:40:08 CET 2006 ... I'd like to be able to see the correct version using 'uname -r'.. Does anybody know how can you make uname report the real version? What if you recompile the kernel after patching the system? Would that do the trick? Recompiling the kernel is the correct way to change the output of uname(1), but before you do so, you should be aware that that patch number is taken from the BRANCH variable in src/sys/conf/newvers.sh. Check that it says 5.3-RELEASE-p24 before you waste time recompiling the kernel. Ceri Thank you Ceri and Jaap for your time. Ceri, edit src/sys/conf/newvers.sh and replace BRANCH=RELEASE-p23 with BRANCH=RELEASE-p24 would be enough?? That would work, but if you don't already have that string then there is a possibility that you don't have all the patches, so please only change it if you are %100 sure that you have. I cannot stress that enough. Ceri I checked the patches (cpio.patch ee.patch texindex5x.patch) and none of them tries to change src/sys/conf/newvers.sh nor src/UPDATING Also, I checked the output while applying the patches and there were no errors. So.. as I didn't find any other patches that are post p23, I edited newvers.sh, build a new kernel and rebooted. uname -r is now happy. Thank you again. Best regards. -- Robi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: {Spam?} Re: patches and uname -a
On 1/12/06, Roberto Nunnari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ceri Davies wrote: That would work, but if you don't already have that string then there is a possibility that you don't have all the patches, so please only change it if you are %100 sure that you have. I cannot stress that enough. I checked the patches (cpio.patch ee.patch texindex5x.patch) and none of them tries to change src/sys/conf/newvers.sh nor src/UPDATING So.. as I didn't find any other patches that are post p23, I edited newvers.sh, build a new kernel and rebooted. uname -r is now happy. If you had set it to TYPE=FreeBSD REVISION=9.1 BRANCH=STALE You could run software from the future (some time in late 2009, I believe). ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: {Spam?} Re: patches and uname -a
Ceri Davies wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:26:22PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Ceri Davies wrote: On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:32, Roberto Nunnari wrote: Hello. Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list. After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly reports the current version of the system Today for the first time I applied all the relevant patches instead and all went well. The box was 5.3-RELEASE-p23. The applied patches should correspond to 5.3-RELEASE-p24, but: # uname -r 5.3-RELEASE-p23 and: # sysctl kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p23 #0: Tue Jan 3 15:40:08 CET 2006 ... I'd like to be able to see the correct version using 'uname -r'.. Does anybody know how can you make uname report the real version? What if you recompile the kernel after patching the system? Would that do the trick? Recompiling the kernel is the correct way to change the output of uname(1), but before you do so, you should be aware that that patch number is taken from the BRANCH variable in src/sys/conf/newvers.sh. Check that it says 5.3-RELEASE-p24 before you waste time recompiling the kernel. Ceri Thank you Ceri and Jaap for your time. Ceri, edit src/sys/conf/newvers.sh and replace BRANCH=RELEASE-p23 with BRANCH=RELEASE-p24 would be enough?? That would work, but if you don't already have that string then there is a possibility that you don't have all the patches, so please only change it if you are %100 sure that you have. I cannot stress that enough. Ceri Answering to myself.. Probably the best thing to do is to use anoncvs to checkout the two files (UPDATING and newvers.sh) and put them in their place before making the new kernel.. Again, best regards. -- Robi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: {Spam?} Re: patches and uname -a
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:04:07PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote: I checked the patches (cpio.patch ee.patch texindex5x.patch) and none of them tries to change src/sys/conf/newvers.sh nor src/UPDATING There is an ipfw one as well. Cheers, Ceri -- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-- Einstein (attrib.) pgp1QovgVDBtl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: {Spam?} Re: {Spam?} Re: patches and uname -a
Ceri Davies wrote: On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:04:07PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote: I checked the patches (cpio.patch ee.patch texindex5x.patch) and none of them tries to change src/sys/conf/newvers.sh nor src/UPDATING There is an ipfw one as well. Cheers, Ceri Thank you Ceri, but I believe that's only for FreeBSD 6.0 Cheers. -- Robi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uname -a output does not change after kernel upgrade
Used the default email when sending this message and therefore it did not reached [EMAIL PROTECTED] Original Message Subject: Re: uname -a output does not change after kernel upgrade Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 00:08:45 +0300 From: Jurgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Daniel Gerzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Gerzo wrote: How can I now which kernel is loaded? sysctl -a | grep kernel OK, I have new userland and old kernel. Those command proves that. # sysctl -a | grep kernel kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel kern.module_path: /boot/kernel;/boot/modules # sysctl -a | grep kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE #1: Fri Apr 29 23:04:18 EEST 2005 I remembered that I had created /boot.config file with following content, but now when I checked it, ir was not there. --- cat /boot.config --- 1:ad(6,a)/boot/loader this doesn't have anything with kernel config I think. actually, I know only one way how to implicitly set the kernel boot file. One can do so by adding line kernel=path/to/kernel into /boot/loader.conf I have to sata disks ad4 and ad6 and I created /boot.config to boot from ad6 instedad of ad4. BTW I'm not quite sure about those parameters in that string 1:ad(6,a)/boot/loader. Is it better that I start new conversation with new Subject and describe how I got all this mess? That's up to you. Personally I don't think it is needed. You should firstly try to build a new kernel AND install it. If you are using your own kernel config file, you should add KERNCONF=CONFIGNAME to the make (build|install)kernel command. I have built and installed the new kernel. I added KERNCONF=CONFIGNAME to /etc/make.conf. There is new kernel and modules in # ls -la /boot/kernel/kernel -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 3328239 May 21 18:45 /boot/kernel/kernel Here is some file information and gmirror configuration: - # df Filesystem 1K-blocksUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/mirror/gm0s1a253734 5496017847624%/ devfs 1 1 0 100%/dev /dev/mirror/gm0s1d253678 58233326 0%/tmp /dev/mirror/gm0s1f 135891276 1911080 123108894 2%/usr /dev/mirror/gm0s1e 50777034 63142 46651730 0%/var # gmirror list Geom name: gm0s1 State: DEGRADED Components: 2 Balance: round-robin Slice: 4096 Flags: NONE SyncID: 5 ID: 4196295632 Providers: 1. Name: mirror/gm0s1 Mediasize: 200046518272 (186G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r4w4e1 Consumers: 1. Name: ad6s1 Mediasize: 200046518784 (186G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r4w4e2 State: ACTIVE Priority: 0 Flags: DIRTY SyncID: 5 ID: 3302562170 # gmirror status NameStatus Components mirror/gm0s1 DEGRADED ad6s1 - --- And a bit from dmesg --- ad4: 190782MB ST3200826AS/3.01 [387621/16/63] at ata2-master SATA150 ad6: 190782MB ST3200826AS/3.01 [387621/16/63] at ata3-master SATA150 GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting fd0. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting ad4. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting ad6. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting ad4s1. magic: GEOM::MIRROR version: 1 name: gm0s1 mid: 4196295632 did: 3946315095 all: 2 syncid: 3 priority: 0 slice: 4096 balance: round-robin mediasize: 200046518272 sectorsize: 512 syncoffset: 0 mflags: NONE dflags: NONE hcprovider: MD5 hash: 4efc7c98de71a4d10b891fd4bc4e2c80 GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Creating device gm0s1 (id=4196295632). GEOM_MIRROR[0]: Device gm0s1 created (id=4196295632). GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Adding disk ad4s1 to gm0s1. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Adding disk ad4s1. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Disk ad4s1 connected. GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Disk ad4s1 state changed from NONE to NEW (device gm0s1). GEOM_MIRROR[0]: Device gm0s1: provider ad4s1 detected. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting ad6s1. magic: GEOM::MIRROR version: 1 name: gm0s1 mid: 4196295632 did: 3302562170 all: 2 syncid: 5 priority: 0 slice: 4096 balance: round-robin mediasize: 200046518272 sectorsize: 512 syncoffset: 0 mflags: NONE dflags: NONE hcprovider: MD5 hash: 9be4ddc54abbe5e0221f020517cac964 GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Adding disk ad6s1 to gm0s1. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Adding disk ad6s1. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Disk ad6s1 connected. GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Disk ad6s1 state changed from NONE to NEW (device gm0s1). GEOM_MIRROR[0]: Device gm0s1: provider ad6s1 detected. GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Device gm0s1 state changed from STARTING to RUNNING. GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Disk ad6s1 state changed from NEW to ACTIVE (device gm0s1). GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Access ad6s1 r0w1e1 = 0 GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting ad4s1a. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Access ad6s1 r0w-1e-1 = 0 GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Metadata on ad6s1 updated. GEOM_MIRROR[0]: Device gm0s1: provider ad6s1 activated. GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Disk ad4s1 state changed from NEW to SYNCHRONIZING (device gm0s1). GEOM_MIRROR[0]: Device gm0s1: provider mirror/gm0s1 launched. GEOM_MIRROR[0]: Device gm0s1: rebuilding provider ad4s1
Re: uname -a output does not change after kernel upgrade
I have fixed the problem. 1) Removed the first SATA disk (ad4) and booted from ad6. Then I got correct kernel and userland (5.4-STABLE) 2) Swapped SATA cables to boot from ad6 (it became ad4). --- # uname -a FreeBSD server.example.com 5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #2: Sat May 21 18:45:32 EEST 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/SERVER i386 # gmirror list Geom name: gm0s1 State: DEGRADED Components: 2 Balance: round-robin Slice: 4096 Flags: NONE GenID: 0 SyncID: 8 ID: 4196295632 Providers: 1. Name: mirror/gm0s1 Mediasize: 200046518272 (186G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r5w4e1 Consumers: 1. Name: ad4s1 Mediasize: 200046518784 (186G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r1w1e1 State: ACTIVE Priority: 0 Flags: DIRTY GenID: 0 SyncID: 8 ID: 3302562170 2. Name: ad6s1 Mediasize: 200046518784 (186G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r1w1e1 State: SYNCHRONIZING Priority: 0 Flags: DIRTY, SYNCHRONIZING GenID: 0 SyncID: 8 Synchronized: 2% ID: 3946315095 # gmirror status NameStatus Components mirror/gm0s1 DEGRADED ad4s1 ad6s1 (2%) --- Thank you for help! Jurgis freebsd-questions wrote: Used the default email when sending this message and therefore it did not reached [EMAIL PROTECTED] Original Message Subject: Re: uname -a output does not change after kernel upgrade Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 00:08:45 +0300 From: Jurgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Daniel Gerzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Gerzo wrote: How can I now which kernel is loaded? sysctl -a | grep kernel OK, I have new userland and old kernel. Those command proves that. # sysctl -a | grep kernel kern.bootfile: /boot/kernel/kernel kern.module_path: /boot/kernel;/boot/modules # sysctl -a | grep kern.version kern.version: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE #1: Fri Apr 29 23:04:18 EEST 2005 I remembered that I had created /boot.config file with following content, but now when I checked it, ir was not there. --- cat /boot.config --- 1:ad(6,a)/boot/loader this doesn't have anything with kernel config I think. actually, I know only one way how to implicitly set the kernel boot file. One can do so by adding line kernel=path/to/kernel into /boot/loader.conf I have to sata disks ad4 and ad6 and I created /boot.config to boot from ad6 instedad of ad4. BTW I'm not quite sure about those parameters in that string 1:ad(6,a)/boot/loader. Is it better that I start new conversation with new Subject and describe how I got all this mess? That's up to you. Personally I don't think it is needed. You should firstly try to build a new kernel AND install it. If you are using your own kernel config file, you should add KERNCONF=CONFIGNAME to the make (build|install)kernel command. I have built and installed the new kernel. I added KERNCONF=CONFIGNAME to /etc/make.conf. There is new kernel and modules in # ls -la /boot/kernel/kernel -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 3328239 May 21 18:45 /boot/kernel/kernel Here is some file information and gmirror configuration: - # df Filesystem 1K-blocksUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/mirror/gm0s1a253734 5496017847624%/ devfs 1 1 0 100%/dev /dev/mirror/gm0s1d253678 58233326 0%/tmp /dev/mirror/gm0s1f 135891276 1911080 123108894 2%/usr /dev/mirror/gm0s1e 50777034 63142 46651730 0%/var # gmirror list Geom name: gm0s1 State: DEGRADED Components: 2 Balance: round-robin Slice: 4096 Flags: NONE SyncID: 5 ID: 4196295632 Providers: 1. Name: mirror/gm0s1 Mediasize: 200046518272 (186G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r4w4e1 Consumers: 1. Name: ad6s1 Mediasize: 200046518784 (186G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r4w4e2 State: ACTIVE Priority: 0 Flags: DIRTY SyncID: 5 ID: 3302562170 # gmirror status NameStatus Components mirror/gm0s1 DEGRADED ad6s1 - --- And a bit from dmesg --- ad4: 190782MB ST3200826AS/3.01 [387621/16/63] at ata2-master SATA150 ad6: 190782MB ST3200826AS/3.01 [387621/16/63] at ata3-master SATA150 GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting fd0. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting ad4. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting ad6. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Tasting ad4s1. magic: GEOM::MIRROR version: 1 name: gm0s1 mid: 4196295632 did: 3946315095 all: 2 syncid: 3 priority: 0 slice: 4096 balance: round-robin mediasize: 200046518272 sectorsize: 512 syncoffset: 0 mflags: NONE dflags: NONE hcprovider: MD5 hash: 4efc7c98de71a4d10b891fd4bc4e2c80 GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Creating device gm0s1 (id=4196295632). GEOM_MIRROR[0]: Device gm0s1 created (id=4196295632). GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Adding disk ad4s1 to gm0s1. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Adding disk ad4s1. GEOM_MIRROR[2]: Disk ad4s1 connected. GEOM_MIRROR[1]: Disk ad4s1 state changed from NONE to NEW (device gm0s1). GEOM_MIRROR[0]: Device
