reassign 329090 kernel-patch-vserver thanks Hello
Thanks a lot for your testing. Micah could you test with 0.30.208-2 version of util-vserver (from unstable) and a 2.6 kernel to see if you can remove all the problems? See below why I would like you do that. --- I have only tested with ext2 and ext3 on my systems on a 2.4.27 kernel patched a long time ago. Do not remember when. 0.30.204-5sarge2 (sarge version, built on machine with no vserver support): [000]. xattr related tests ... [101]. [102]. [103]* [104]* [106]* [108]. [109]* [112]. [113]. [114]* [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119]. [121]* [122]* [123]. [124]* [199]. 0.30.204-5sarge3 (sarge version recompiled on vserver machine): [000]. xattr related tests ... [101]. [102]. [103]* [104]* [106]* [108]. [109]* [112]. [113]. [114]* [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119]. [121]* [122]* [123]. [124]* [199]. 0.30.208-2 (unstable version, built on sarge host with no vserver support): [000]. xattr related tests ... [101]. [102]. [103]. [104]* [106]. [108]. [109]. [112]. [113]. [114]* [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119]. [121]. [122]* [123]. [124]* [199]. 0.30.208-2sarge1 (unstable version rebuilt for sarge on vserver machine): [000]. xattr related tests ... [101]. [102]. [103]. [104]* [106]. [108]. [109]. [112]. [113]. [114]* [115]. [116]. [117]. [118]. [119]. [121]. [122]* [123]. [124]* [199]. So my conclusion is that where you build the binary (if it is a i386 machine) do not give any difference from a security point of view. Now to your testing... On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 07:00:22PM -0400, micah wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > These bug reports are very confusing, I am performing my own tests to > help clarify. Thanks a lot! It is really a big help. > Andrew Lee wrote: > > > The VCI shouldn't be <none> if you have setup /dev/loop4 correctly, I > > did same thing and got same errors when I forgot to setup the /dev/ > > loop4 after a reboot. > > No, "VCI: <none> (unknown)" is fine in 2.4 because 2.4 has no VCI info. > > > Here is what I did for create a loopback file and the run losetup: > > # dd bs=1024k count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=1gb.testfile > > # losetup /dev/loop4 1gb.testfs > > Note: I have other loopback files running on /dev/loop{0,1,2,3} > > already, so I use /dev/loop4 in my case. Did similar but used lvm instead of loopback device. > The following is the results of my tests: > > For all tests the following packages need to be installed: > xfsprogs jfsutils reiserfsprogs reiser4progs util-vserver > (0.30.204-5sarge2 unless otherwise noted) > > Procedure is to do: > 1. # dd bs=1024k count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=/home/1gb.testfile > 2. # losetup /dev/loop4 /home/1gb.testfile > 3. # mkdir /mnt2 > > On 2.6 kernels the following switches were used to test: > 4. # ./testfs.sh-0.09 -vv -D /dev/loop4 -M /mnt2 > > Test 1: > > Sarge kernel 2.6.8 (2.6.8-16) with debian package kernel-patch-vserver > (debian package version: 1.9.5.3, kernel patch: > patch-2.6.8-15-vs1.9.5.x-4.diff.gz) applied on an i386 machine. > > > Results: > All the tests succeed on ext2/ext3/reiserfs, the following fail: > xfs: 103, 106, 113, 115, 117 > jfs: 104, 114, 121, 122, 123, 124 Which means that this is a kernel patch problem as it fail on my system with an older kernel patch. This also mean that this is actually just a bug with 2.4 kernels. > Test 2: > > Sarge kernel 2.6.8 (2.6.8-16) with debian kernel-patch-vserver (debian > package version: 1.9.5.4 (not in sarge), kernel patch > patch-2.6.8-15-vs1.9.5.x-5.diff.gz) applied on an i386 machine. > > Results: > Exactly the same as the results from Test 1 > > Test 3: > > Sarge kernel 2.4.27 (2.4.27-10) with the debian kernel-patch-vserver > (debian package version: 1.9.5.3, kernel patch > patch-2.4.27-9-vs1.2.10-2.diff.gz) applied on an i386 machine. > > Results: > > ext2/ext3 failures: 103, 104, 106, 109, 114, 121, 122, 124 > xfs failures: 103, 104, 106, 109, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 124 > reiserfs failures: 103, 104, 106, 109, 114, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124 > jfs failures: 103, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, > 122, 123, 124 Get the same result. Think I have used a similar patch. [103]* [104]* [106]* [109]* [114]* [121]* [122]* [124]* > Note: Bertl says this is a failure with the util-vserver tools, so I > perform the test again with util-vserver .208 from unstable: > > Test 4: > Sarge kernel 2.4.27 (2.4.27-10) with the debian kernel-patch-vserver > (debian package version: 1.9.5.3, kernel patch > patch-2.4.27-9-vs1.2.10-2.diff.gz) applied on an i386 machine. Using > util-vserver tools from unstable (0.30.208-2) > > ext2/ext3 failures: 104, 106, 114, 122, 124 > xfs failures: 103, 104, 106, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 124 > reiserfs failures: 104, 106, 114, 118, 119, 122, 124 > jfs failures: 102, 103, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, > 121, 122, 123, 124 So with your testing and mine I come to the conclusion that some of the tests are related to util-vserver and some are related to the kernel. As all of them was possible to fix (unless you use xfs or jfs) by using the latest kernel I assume that I can redirect this bug to the kernel-patch-vserver package instead. But it would be good to know if some of the errors was related to util-vserver or not. Regards, // Ola -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]