Bug#218657: Still problems with df
Hi, I'm forwarding this to debian-amd64 since I'm not working on debians amd64 anymore since the DAM rejected me. Can anyone still reproduce the df bug below? MfG Goswin GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 10 Dec 2003 09:38:42 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I still see this bug on my system here: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on df: `/': Invalid argument df: `/proc': Invalid argument df: `/boot': Invalid argument df: `/dev/pts': Invalid argument [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% uname -a Linux opteron 2.6.0-test11 #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 x86_64 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.0-test11 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease)) #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -l coreutils libc6 ii coreutils 5.0.91-2 The GNU core utilities ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone Looking at fs/compat.c in 2.6.0-test11 I see the patch present in the bugreport was included. All it seems to do is change Bad address to Invalid argument. Older glibc, like the 2.3.2-7.biarch1 version used for debian-amd64 sarge, work fine though: ... PPS: I will compile a 2.4.23 kernel and do the same tests next time I reboot just for good measure. Is this bug still alive, Goswin? Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#218657: Still problems with df
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 05:13:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Hi, I'm forwarding this to debian-amd64 since I'm not working on debians amd64 anymore since the DAM rejected me. I can't reproduce this on a system with libc6 2.3.2.ds1-11, coreutils 5.0.91-2 and a 2.6.5 kernel. Neither using 64bit or 32bit applications. I don't have an older kernel handy to test if this is a kernel bug or not. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#218657: Still problems with df
Hi, I'm forwarding this to debian-amd64 since I'm not working on debians amd64 anymore since the DAM rejected me. Can anyone still reproduce the df bug below? MfG Goswin GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 10 Dec 2003 09:38:42 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I still see this bug on my system here: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on df: `/': Invalid argument df: `/proc': Invalid argument df: `/boot': Invalid argument df: `/dev/pts': Invalid argument [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% uname -a Linux opteron 2.6.0-test11 #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 x86_64 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.0-test11 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease)) #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -l coreutils libc6 ii coreutils 5.0.91-2 The GNU core utilities ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone Looking at fs/compat.c in 2.6.0-test11 I see the patch present in the bugreport was included. All it seems to do is change Bad address to Invalid argument. Older glibc, like the 2.3.2-7.biarch1 version used for debian-amd64 sarge, work fine though: ... PPS: I will compile a 2.4.23 kernel and do the same tests next time I reboot just for good measure. Is this bug still alive, Goswin? Regards, -- gotom
Bug#218657: Still problems with df
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 05:13:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Hi, I'm forwarding this to debian-amd64 since I'm not working on debians amd64 anymore since the DAM rejected me. I can't reproduce this on a system with libc6 2.3.2.ds1-11, coreutils 5.0.91-2 and a 2.6.5 kernel. Neither using 64bit or 32bit applications. I don't have an older kernel handy to test if this is a kernel bug or not. Kurt
Bug#218657: Still problems with df
At 10 Dec 2003 09:38:42 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I still see this bug on my system here: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on df: `/': Invalid argument df: `/proc': Invalid argument df: `/boot': Invalid argument df: `/dev/pts': Invalid argument [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% uname -a Linux opteron 2.6.0-test11 #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 x86_64 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.0-test11 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease)) #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -l coreutils libc6 ii coreutils 5.0.91-2 The GNU core utilities ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone Looking at fs/compat.c in 2.6.0-test11 I see the patch present in the bugreport was included. All it seems to do is change Bad address to Invalid argument. Older glibc, like the 2.3.2-7.biarch1 version used for debian-amd64 sarge, work fine though: ... PPS: I will compile a 2.4.23 kernel and do the same tests next time I reboot just for good measure. Is this bug still alive, Goswin? Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#218657: Still problems with df
At 10 Dec 2003 09:38:42 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I still see this bug on my system here: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on df: `/': Invalid argument df: `/proc': Invalid argument df: `/boot': Invalid argument df: `/dev/pts': Invalid argument [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% uname -a Linux opteron 2.6.0-test11 #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 x86_64 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.0-test11 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease)) #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -l coreutils libc6 ii coreutils 5.0.91-2 The GNU core utilities ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone Looking at fs/compat.c in 2.6.0-test11 I see the patch present in the bugreport was included. All it seems to do is change Bad address to Invalid argument. Older glibc, like the 2.3.2-7.biarch1 version used for debian-amd64 sarge, work fine though: ... PPS: I will compile a 2.4.23 kernel and do the same tests next time I reboot just for good measure. Is this bug still alive, Goswin? Regards, -- gotom
Bug#218657: Still problems with df
Hi, I still see this bug on my system here: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on df: `/': Invalid argument df: `/proc': Invalid argument df: `/boot': Invalid argument df: `/dev/pts': Invalid argument [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% uname -a Linux opteron 2.6.0-test11 #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 x86_64 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.0-test11 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease)) #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -l coreutils libc6 ii coreutils 5.0.91-2 The GNU core utilities ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone Looking at fs/compat.c in 2.6.0-test11 I see the patch present in the bugreport was included. All it seems to do is change Bad address to Invalid argument. Older glibc, like the 2.3.2-7.biarch1 version used for debian-amd64 sarge, work fine though: sh-2.05b# /tmp/df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on rootfs 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% / /dev/root 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% / /dev/hda1 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /boot sh-2.05b# file tmp/df tmp/df: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.2.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sh-2.05b# ldd tmp/df libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0xa000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 = /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000) sh-2.05b# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on rootfs 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% / /dev/root 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% / /dev/hda1 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /boot sh-2.05b# file /bin/df /bin/df: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sh-2.05b# ldd /bin/df libc.so.6 = /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x002a9566c000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 = /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x002a95556000) MfG Goswin PS: 2.6 seems to be the prefered kernel for amd64 systems and they are getting more common. PPS: I will compile a 2.4.23 kernel and do the same tests next time I reboot just for good measure.
Bug#218657: Still problems with df
Hi, I still see this bug on my system here: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on df: `/': Invalid argument df: `/proc': Invalid argument df: `/boot': Invalid argument df: `/dev/pts': Invalid argument [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% uname -a Linux opteron 2.6.0-test11 #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 x86_64 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.0-test11 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease)) #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -l coreutils libc6 ii coreutils 5.0.91-2 The GNU core utilities ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone Looking at fs/compat.c in 2.6.0-test11 I see the patch present in the bugreport was included. All it seems to do is change Bad address to Invalid argument. Older glibc, like the 2.3.2-7.biarch1 version used for debian-amd64 sarge, work fine though: sh-2.05b# /tmp/df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on rootfs 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% / /dev/root 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% / /dev/hda1 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /boot sh-2.05b# file tmp/df tmp/df: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.2.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sh-2.05b# ldd tmp/df libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0xa000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 = /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000) sh-2.05b# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on rootfs 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% / /dev/root 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% / /dev/hda1 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /boot sh-2.05b# file /bin/df /bin/df: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sh-2.05b# ldd /bin/df libc.so.6 = /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x002a9566c000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 = /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x002a95556000) MfG Goswin PS: 2.6 seems to be the prefered kernel for amd64 systems and they are getting more common. PPS: I will compile a 2.4.23 kernel and do the same tests next time I reboot just for good measure. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
