Bug#329354: CAN-2005-0204 and 2.4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi there. On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:30:25AM +0900, Horms wrote: > The problem that you see is a patch that was included in 2.4.27-11 > (the current version in sid), though it isn't built for amd64. > > Could you see if the following patch works for you. Yes it does. That's exactly what I also did to make it build, but I didn't send in a patch as I wasn't sure that 4 (sizeof(u32)) is the right factor for a 64-bit arch. > I've CCed lkml and Marcelo for their consideration. It seems to me > that 2.4 is indeed vulnerable to CAN-2005-0204, perhaps someone can > shed some light on this. My intuition agrees with yours. However, as also stated in #329355 by fs, "the amd64 port does not support 2.4 kernels, and there are no plans to change this", so I guess this is not-a-bug for debian/x86_64. \n\n -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Nikos "Nikolai" Ntarmos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> iD8DBQFDMrgIm6J1ac+VFgoRAhbeAKCF2R6VkcHCsTYalKNnuvZeILlfMwCeMQDu 0C9BehFcgeBdor2abF+2wmo= =Ihfo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#329355: Kernels compiled from kernel-source-2.4.27 can't boot on x86_64.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi again. On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > the amd64 port does not support 2.4 kernels, and there are no plans > top change this. ACK. I guess I missed that part in the release notes... I re-read the whole thing anew just now. There is no concrete statement that 2.4 will never ever run on x86_64. The sentence "For the AMD64 architecture only a 2.6 kernel is available" could be interpreted as "we only build the 2.6 kernel but, hey, here's the code for an earlier one too". I also read that chapter 4 about moving up from a 2.4 to a 2.6 kernel and it doesn't seem as if one couldn't go the other way round either. Anyway, if it weren't for this wretched sata controller thing, I would've gone straight for a 2.6 kernel. BTW the bug report was "automagically" raised to 'serious' status by reportbug (no builds of kernel-image-2.4.27 could be found -- obviously -- so it thought it was something more than what it actually was). Oh well... Back to 2.6, then. Sorry for the noise. \n\n -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Nikos "Nikolai" Ntarmos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> iD8DBQFDMbX9m6J1ac+VFgoRAmKuAKCT+ZAypHQrOOBBsCVUW/SuIU3ZBACePK9t 3mTDtXozh67uJJMs36vzjik= =nEj6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#329355: Kernels compiled from kernel-source-2.4.27 can't boot on x86_64.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:59:03PM +0200, Maximilian Attems wrote: > why can't you use the 2.6 kernel image? I've been having problems with a SiI3112 card in a server I'm trying to setup. I've filed a bug with the kernel's bugzilla (bug id: 5279), since this is almost instantly reproducible with both distribution and upstream kernels. This is not the first time I use a SiI3112 controller though; I've at least one more computer that has this chip and does really well, even under high loads. The difference is that the latter computer runs a 2.4.x kernel. I've google'd around quite a bit the last few days, only to see that people are having tons of issues with this controller and 2.6 kernels, so I thought I'd switch back to a 2.4 one; this is going to be a production system, so stability is much more important to me than speed or anything. The reason why I filed this bug report is that IMO there is no reason in having a package available for download and installation when it can't be of any use, all of this without letting people know that they can't do anything with it. Of course, there is a (small) possibility that I've done something wrong with my build system, in which case I apologize for the noise. However, I strongly believe that that's not the case. Even so, I suggest that these things be at least documented or something. \n\n -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Nikos "Nikolai" Ntarmos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> iD8DBQFDMYVYm6J1ac+VFgoRAkjJAJ9z/Ux9Cj/FV3YRMTzvU0yHBMmw8ACgif5P l4i74x1ZpGMbtqeircx5hKw= =VsF3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#329355: Kernels compiled from kernel-source-2.4.27 can't boot on x86_64.
Package: kernel-source-2.4.27 Version: 2.4.27-11.hls.2005082200 Severity: important Kernels compiled from kernel-source-2.4.27 fail to boot on x86_64, with a 'FATAL: Kernel too old' error. This is on a 3.1r0a/x86_64 system, with security and standard updates as of yesterday. The error is probably caused by libc6 having been built against a v2.6 kernel, which seems very probable since 3.1r0a ships with a 2.6.8 kernel. However, if this is actually the case, a remark in the package's description or a preinst dialog warning the user of this problem (if not taking this package completely off the x86_64 repo) would be very useful and time-saving. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.13-rc7 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages kernel-source-2.4.27 depends on: ii binutils 2.15-6 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii bzip2 1.0.2-7high-quality block-sorting file co ii coreutils [fileutils] 5.2.1-2The GNU core utilities -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#329354: kernel-source-2.4.27: Patch 143_outs.diff.bz2 breaks compilation on x86_64.
Package: kernel-source-2.4.27 Version: 2.4.27-11.hls.2005082200 Severity: important Justification: fails to build from source Patch 143_outs.diff.bz2 breaks the kernel compilation on x86_64. The problem is that it uses the IO_BITMAP_BYTES macro which is defined for i386 (in linux/include/asm-i386/processor.h) but not for x86_64. Reverting the patch lets the kernel build again, although I guess the correct solution would be to add an appropriate IO_BITMAP_BYTES to linux/include/asm-x86_64/processor.h as well. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.13-rc7 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages kernel-source-2.4.27 depends on: ii binutils 2.15-6 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii bzip2 1.0.2-7high-quality block-sorting file co ii coreutils [fileutils] 5.2.1-2The GNU core utilities -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
