Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hi Chris, Chris H. wrote: Hello, and thank you for your reply. Quoting Lawrence Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi Chris, Firstly, a disclaimer: I'm not an expert so I might be behind the times on what I'm about to tell you... Note taken. :) Chris H. wrote: > Hello all, > System: > FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008 > > Context: > After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of > Apache13-ssl > and friends built and installed from source (see thread: > /usr/bin/objformat, for > more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache > 2.0. I was > reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted > conf files > which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to > abuse, or > attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my ill > fated > attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source > necessitated > increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on > this one. > > To the point! > Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30). > As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues). > Current version: > 2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected. > I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool. > The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE. > Other than that, all was as-was. > [snip] Regardless of the errors you reported, I believe changing the MPM is a problem. Last time I tried Apache with the threaded worker MPM it worked flawlessly. However PHP has issues because it isn't thread safe. The only safe way to run the 2 together was to set the Apache MPM back to the default (prefork). While I appreciate your insight regarding php5 not being "thread safe". I would argue that I am not seeing php5 using anthing regarding my Apache 2.0 build, except to ask whether it is 1.3 || 2. So, while you may be /absolutely/ correct about php5 not running well/at all with a threaded Apache. I'm still stumped as to why php5 refuses to build, and emits what appears to be errors in the php5 configure/make files. Point being; if I can get php5 to build/install. I might be able to make it "play nice" with a threaded Apache; and that would make /everyone/ happy. :) It does smell of a problem related with another port... Perhaps you just need to do some portupgrading? That said, with problems like this, I just reckon that it's best to start simple i.e. setup apache in the known good way (prefork mpm) and then get php working. Once you're convinced that all plays nice, then upgrade apache to use worker MPM and see what breaks (if anything). You're more likely to get useful help from people if you only change one variable at a time as it were. Taking my disclaimer into account, I possibly just didn't figure out how to make the 2 play nice, so I'd welcome info/pointers from others who have managed to get threaded apache and PHP working together. Assuming no one pipes up and explains how to work around the PHP threading issues, I'd recommend rebuilding apache with the default MPM (shouldn't require any make variables defined). Verify it works ok once installed and then try get PHP working again. I may try that. But I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with getting php5 to build. As (mentioned earlier) I am unable to find where php5 does anything more that to ask if I'm using Apache 1.3 || 2. As am I. But the cvsup of the ports tree has possibly required php to use a new dependency on a newer version of autoconf or some other pkg. Installing the ports-mgmt/portupgrade port and running "portupgrade -Rrf php5" will take all the hard work out of ensuring all your packages required by PHP are up to date. I would also echo the recommendation of others to jump straight to Apache 2.2(.8) if you're going to make a disruptive switch now anyways. I have a personal step-by-step build guide for getting Apache 2.2 and PHP5 working together if you're interested. Not going to happen - in the near future anyway. It's not unlike asking an Athiest to become a Jew. While it may be possible for one to make the change. It's a quantum leap. I've recently elaborated on this already. So I'll not repeat myself here. :) The other messages in the thread hadn't arrived at my mail client before I said this... sorry for flogging the dead horse a little more (but I guess I suspected the effort to go from 1.3->2.0 is effectively identical to 1.3->2.2, but that is a guess). Cheers, Lawrence ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Quoting Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I may try that. But I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with
getting php5 to build. As (mentioned earlier) I am unable to find
where php5 does anything more that to ask if I'm using Apache 1.3 || 2.
This puzzles me - my php5 from ports doesnt ask this at all. You just
build it and it finds your Apache install (if you dont have apache
installed then it tries to install 1.3). As to what it needs from
Apache - well preseumbaly it uses axps and associated bits in order
to build the module.
Yes, it's an if, then block, and that's the size of it. Nothing more.
OK. Off to the /meat/ of things...
I did a build by declaring a WITHOUT_APACHE=true in my /etc/make.conf
and the /var/db/ports/php5/options. Leaving the following in both:
WITH_SUHOSIN=true
WITHOUT_MULTIBYTE=true
WITHOUT_MAILHEAD=true
WITH_CLI=true
WITH_CGI=true
WITHOUT_REDIRECT=true
WITHOUT_DISCARD=true
WITH_FASTCGI=true
WITH_PATHINFO=true
As suspected, it built without /any/ errors - OK just the following:
configure.in:152: warning: AC_PROG_LEX invoked multiple times
../../lib/autoconf/programs.m4:779: AC_DECL_YYTEXT is expanded from...
aclocal.m4:2080: PHP_PROG_LEX is expanded from...
configure.in:152: the top level
But it's been doing that for quite awhile, and doesn't get in the way
of a successful build or install.
On another note of interest; I found the problem that causes the
error message as used in the title of this thread:
[: -le: argument expected
The cause is in the file: lang/php5/files/patch-Zend_zend_list.c
It accounts for all /3/ errors emitted during the initial portion
of the make process. The lines are as follows:
--- Zend/zend_list.c.orig 2007-01-01 10:35:46.0 +0100
+++ Zend/zend_list.c2008-01-29 11:05:14.0 +0100
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
return index;
}
-ZEND_API int _zend_list_delete(int id TSRMLS_DC)
+ZEND_API int _zend_list_delete(ulong id TSRMLS_DC)
{
*** zend_rsrc_list_entry *le;
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
}
-ZEND_API void *_zend_list_find(int id, int *type TSRMLS_DC)
+ZEND_API void *_zend_list_find(ulong id, int *type TSRMLS_DC)
{
*** zend_rsrc_list_entry *le;
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@
}
}
-ZEND_API int _zend_list_addref(int id TSRMLS_DC)
+ZEND_API int _zend_list_addref(ulong id TSRMLS_DC)
{
*** zend_rsrc_list_entry *le;
(highlighted with three asterisks for clarity).
While it's nice that I found them. I'm not sure what to do to
make them correct. Any thoughts? Should I simply send-pr -
php5-apache-module build failure (lang/php5/files/patch-Zend_zend_list.c)?
Anyway, at least some headway has been made. :)
Thanks again, for all your input.
--Chris H
-pete.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
[I've kept your ccs, but I'm only subscribed to -stable] On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Chris H. wrote: > Hello Pete, and thank you for your continued input. I really appreciate it. > > Quoting Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [.. huge snip.. ] > > How about try configuring it *not* to build the apache dependent bits and > > see if it compiles then? The php5 port only depends on Apache if you tell > > it > > to build the Apache module. > > I'm /quite/ sure that that will work flawlessly. I'll do that first, and > report my experience. > > > > > Or try installing it with pkg_add -r ? > > I won't realize the recent changes that cvsup has added to the port source. It wouldn't work anyway. Unless things have changed very recently - and I'd be pleasantly surprised to be told that they had - for some utterly bizarre reason, the php5 package does not include the apache module. Well, the reason is that packages are built with default port options, and the apache module is not a default port option. Fair enough, but for those people who'd hope to be able to install apache[anything] + php5 from packages, a php5-with-modphp5 package would be really handy. cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
> I may try that. But I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with > getting php5 to build. As (mentioned earlier) I am unable to find > where php5 does anything more that to ask if I'm using Apache 1.3 || 2. This puzzles me - my php5 from ports doesnt ask this at all. You just build it and it finds your Apache install (if you dont have apache installed then it tries to install 1.3). As to what it needs from Apache - well preseumbaly it uses axps and associated bits in order to build the module. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hello Pete, and thank you for your continued input. I really appreciate it. Quoting Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Well, to be Frank with you ( even though my name is Chris ;) ), having to migrate ~50 conf files/layouts on top of "mastering" the /new/ Apache way of doing things, on top of aquainting myself with the way the modules /now/ do things, just isn't going to fit in my schedule. Oh sure I hear you (or others) say; you're going to have to do all of that anyway. Actually I understand that perfcetly - indeed I spent today finally mihgrating something originally installed on FreeBSD 3 many years ago (possibly 1999) and getting it working with ports as I had been avoiding re-doing it for all these years. Several hour and a lot of pain. If I wasn't off work sick it wouldn't have got done at all. I don't think it's (at this point in my install) reasonable to assume Apache 2.0 has anything to do with it. As the PHP5 build doesn't even care (or ask about) which Apache version I'm using, except to differentiate between it being 1.3 || 2.x. O.K., so this is a simple case of cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 make fetch-recursive make config-recursive make clean make yup ? now, I did that with a csup of php5 a few days ago and it was O.K. for me. A few days ago it worked great for me too. :) But seems that my cvsup of 2008-01-31 has added some changes to my php5 source. Namely: lang/php5/files/patch-Zend_zend_list.c, and lang/php5/files/patch-Zend_zend_list.h. I thought about getting the diffs from freebsd.org and "diffing" back. But felt I should hold back, in hopes of a better solution. I am reconning that this has something to do with some other ports that php5 is dependent on which havent been upgraded to the version in the tree. Hey, that's not asking much (not sarcastic). I'm not getting anywhere in/ at my current state. :) How about try configuring it *not* to build the apache dependent bits and see if it compiles then? The php5 port only depends on Apache if you tell it to build the Apache module. I'm /quite/ sure that that will work flawlessly. I'll do that first, and report my experience. Or try installing it with pkg_add -r ? I won't realize the recent changes that cvsup has added to the port source. Thanks again for all your input! I'll be back... --Chris -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- panic: kernel trap (ignored) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hi Chris, Firstly, a disclaimer: I'm not an expert so I might be behind the times on what I'm about to tell you... Chris H. wrote: > Hello all, > System: > FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008 > > Context: > After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of > Apache13-ssl > and friends built and installed from source (see thread: > /usr/bin/objformat, for > more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache > 2.0. I was > reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted > conf files > which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to > abuse, or > attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my ill > fated > attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source > necessitated > increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on > this one. > > To the point! > Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30). > As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues). > Current version: > 2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected. > I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool. > The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE. > Other than that, all was as-was. > [snip] Regardless of the errors you reported, I believe changing the MPM is a problem. Last time I tried Apache with the threaded worker MPM it worked flawlessly. However PHP has issues because it isn't thread safe. The only safe way to run the 2 together was to set the Apache MPM back to the default (prefork). Taking my disclaimer into account, I possibly just didn't figure out how to make the 2 play nice, so I'd welcome info/pointers from others who have managed to get threaded apache and PHP working together. Assuming no one pipes up and explains how to work around the PHP threading issues, I'd recommend rebuilding apache with the default MPM (shouldn't require any make variables defined). Verify it works ok once installed and then try get PHP working again. I would also echo the recommendation of others to jump straight to Apache 2.2(.8) if you're going to make a disruptive switch now anyways. I have a personal step-by-step build guide for getting Apache 2.2 and PHP5 working together if you're interested. As to your reported errors, I can't really shed any light on them, sorry. Cheers, Lawrence ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hello, and thank you for your reply. Quoting Lawrence Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi Chris, Firstly, a disclaimer: I'm not an expert so I might be behind the times on what I'm about to tell you... Note taken. :) Chris H. wrote: > Hello all, > System: > FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008 > > Context: > After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of > Apache13-ssl > and friends built and installed from source (see thread: > /usr/bin/objformat, for > more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache > 2.0. I was > reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted > conf files > which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to > abuse, or > attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my ill > fated > attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source > necessitated > increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on > this one. > > To the point! > Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30). > As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues). > Current version: > 2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected. > I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool. > The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE. > Other than that, all was as-was. > [snip] Regardless of the errors you reported, I believe changing the MPM is a problem. Last time I tried Apache with the threaded worker MPM it worked flawlessly. However PHP has issues because it isn't thread safe. The only safe way to run the 2 together was to set the Apache MPM back to the default (prefork). While I appreciate your insight regarding php5 not being "thread safe". I would argue that I am not seeing php5 using anthing regarding my Apache 2.0 build, except to ask whether it is 1.3 || 2. So, while you may be /absolutely/ correct about php5 not running well/at all with a threaded Apache. I'm still stumped as to why php5 refuses to build, and emits what appears to be errors in the php5 configure/make files. Point being; if I can get php5 to build/install. I might be able to make it "play nice" with a threaded Apache; and that would make /everyone/ happy. :) Taking my disclaimer into account, I possibly just didn't figure out how to make the 2 play nice, so I'd welcome info/pointers from others who have managed to get threaded apache and PHP working together. Assuming no one pipes up and explains how to work around the PHP threading issues, I'd recommend rebuilding apache with the default MPM (shouldn't require any make variables defined). Verify it works ok once installed and then try get PHP working again. I may try that. But I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with getting php5 to build. As (mentioned earlier) I am unable to find where php5 does anything more that to ask if I'm using Apache 1.3 || 2. I would also echo the recommendation of others to jump straight to Apache 2.2(.8) if you're going to make a disruptive switch now anyways. I have a personal step-by-step build guide for getting Apache 2.2 and PHP5 working together if you're interested. Not going to happen - in the near future anyway. It's not unlike asking an Athiest to become a Jew. While it may be possible for one to make the change. It's a quantum leap. I've recently elaborated on this already. So I'll not repeat myself here. :) As to your reported errors, I can't really shed any light on them, sorry. Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply, and your generous offer Lawerence. :) --Chris Cheers, Lawrence -- panic: kernel trap (ignored) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
> Well, to be Frank with you ( even though my name is Chris ;) ), having > to migrate ~50 conf files/layouts on top of "mastering" the /new/ Apache > way of doing things, on top of aquainting myself with the way the > modules /now/ do things, just isn't going to fit in my schedule. Oh sure > I hear you (or others) say; you're going to have to do all of that anyway. Actually I understand that perfcetly - indeed I spent today finally mihgrating something originally installed on FreeBSD 3 many years ago (possibly 1999) and getting it working with ports as I had been avoiding re-doing it for all these years. Several hour and a lot of pain. If I wasn't off work sick it wouldn't have got done at all. > I don't think it's (at this point in my install) reasonable to assume > Apache 2.0 has anything to do with it. As the PHP5 build doesn't even > care (or ask about) which Apache version I'm using, except to > differentiate between it being 1.3 || 2.x. O.K., so this is a simple case of cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 make fetch-recursive make config-recursive make clean make yup ? now, I did that with a csup of php5 a few days ago and it was O.K. for me. I am reconning that this has something to do with some other ports that php5 is dependent on which havent been upgraded to the version in the tree. How about try configuring it *not* to build the apache dependent bits and see if it compiles then? The php5 port only depends on Apache if you tell it to build the Apache module. Or try installing it with pkg_add -r ? -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hello Peter, and thank you for your thoughtful reply. Quoting Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: also already subscribed to the Apache dev list). My conclusion was that the ultimate migration to 2, would be a lot smoother, and easier if moving to 2.0 - the layout of both the server, and conf files are /very/ similar (to 1.3). O.K., that makes a lot of sense - I can't remember how I did this, but I think I ended abandonning migrating the config files and simply re-wrote them to have the same functionality when I got a few spare dayes ;) Well, to be Frank with you ( even though my name is Chris ;) ), having to migrate ~50 conf files/layouts on top of "mastering" the /new/ Apache way of doing things, on top of aquainting myself with the way the modules /now/ do things, just isn't going to fit in my schedule. Oh sure I hear you (or others) say; you're going to have to do all of that anyway. So why not just start now, and get it over with. While to a degree that may be so. But as I have it now, my servers are frequently hammered at ~50-75 attacks/second, all without fail. They are (thus far) also impervious to attempts to acquisition/manipulation of server data (most notably PHP). This has been no small feat, and has all been from the acumulation, and examination of the data that was waged against our servers over the years. Not to mention, becoming intimately familiar with all the modules we use (weaknesses/strengths etc...). So, in an effort to continue to thwart such attacks. I'm going to /attempt/ to use 2.0.x. Which really only requires me to re-aquaint myself with the modules. /Then/ should the need/time/desire to move to 2.2.x occur. It won't be such an unreasonable task. :) me to find an argument to move from 2.0. The current trouble I'm encountering is clearly a PHP5 issue. As it isn't even touching the Apache 2 install during the build process. I hope I've adequately answered your question, and hope I wasn't /too/ verbose. :) NO, answered perfectly - am tyring to remmebr whether the reaosn I didnt like 2.0 was to do with php too though. It seems to cause some kind of woes every time I upgrade. I don't think it's (at this point in my install) reasonable to assume Apache 2.0 has anything to do with it. As the PHP5 build doesn't even care (or ask about) which Apache version I'm using, except to differentiate between it being 1.3 || 2.x. You said you had to sup the ports tree BTW - does that mean you rebuilt every other port on the system ? No. Not yet. I examined the changes that were applied, and the only areas that affect what I struggling with now, are being built /after/ the cvsup (weren't built before). Thanks again for taking the time to respond. --Chris H -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- panic: kernel trap (ignored) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected (php5 unbuildable)
Quoting "Chris H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hello all,
System:
FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008
Context:
After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl
and friends built and installed from source (see thread:
/usr/bin/objformat, for
more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache
2.0. I was
reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted
conf files
which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to abuse, or
attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my
ill fated
attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source
necessitated
increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on
this one.
To the point!
Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30).
As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues).
Current version:
2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected.
I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool.
The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE.
Other than that, all was as-was.
Error(s):
After determining that everything was acceptablr/as intended with Apache.
I moved on to building/installing php5 as cgi,cli, and module. The first
thing emitted when typing make is:
[: -le: argument expected
[: -le: argument expected
This gets emitted once more early in the configure process. Followed by:
configure.in:152: warning: AC_PROG_LEX invoked multiple times
../../lib/autoconf/programs.m4:779: AC_DECL_YYTEXT is expanded from...
aclocal.m4:2080: PHP_PROG_LEX is expanded from...
configure.in:152: the top level
The build finally /dies/ with the following otput (with context):
...
Thank you for using PHP.
config.status: creating php5.spec
config.status: creating main/build-defs.h
config.status: creating scripts/phpize
config.status: creating scripts/man1/phpize.1
config.status: creating scripts/php-config
config.status: creating scripts/man1/php-config.1
config.status: creating sapi/cli/php.1
config.status: creating main/php_config.h
config.status: executing default commands
===> Building for php5-5.2.5_1
"Makefile", line 592: warning: duplicate script for target
"main/internal_functions.lo" ignored
...
-I/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/Zend-O2
-fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -prefer-non-pic -c
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c -o
sapi/apache/sapi_apache.lo
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c: In
function 'apache_php_module_main':
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: 'NOT_FOUND' undeclared (first use in this function)
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: for each function it appears in.)
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5.
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5.
*** Error code 1
From sapi_apache.c:
if (display_source_mode) {
zend_syntax_highlighter_ini syntax_highlighter_ini;
php_get_highlight_struct(&syntax_highlighter_ini);
if (highlight_file(SG(request_info).path_translated,
&syntax_highlighter_ini TSRMLS_CC) != SUCCESS) {
*** OFFENDING LINE (44) retval = NOT_FOUND;
}
} else {
Any chance somebody knows what is required to resolve this - pretty please?
Thank you for all your time and consideration.
--Chris H
Just making the title more meaningful.
The original wasn't very representitive of the problem. Sorry.
--Chris
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-apache
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
> also already subscribed to the Apache dev list). My conclusion was that > the ultimate migration to 2, would be a lot smoother, and easier if moving > to 2.0 - the layout of both the server, and conf files are /very/ similar > (to 1.3). O.K., that makes a lot of sense - I can't remember how I did this, but I think I ended abandonning migrating the config files and simply re-wrote them to have the same functionality when I got a few spare dayes ;) > me to find an argument to move from 2.0. The current trouble I'm > encountering is clearly a PHP5 issue. As it isn't even touching the > Apache 2 install during the build process. I hope I've adequately > answered your question, and hope I wasn't /too/ verbose. :) NO, answered perfectly - am tyring to remmebr whether the reaosn I didnt like 2.0 was to do with php too though. It seems to cause some kind of woes every time I upgrade. You said you had to sup the ports tree BTW - does that mean you rebuilt every other port on the system ? -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Quoting Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl and friends built and installed from source (see thread: /usr/bin/objformat, for more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache 2.0. Out of interest, why did you choose 2.0 and not 2.2 ? When I migrated away from 1.3 I originally tried 2.0 and had quite a bad time of it as I recall. So I left it a while and ended up going directly to 2.2, which has behaved beautifully. I can't solve your problem, but I can say that personal experience was 2.2 being easier to move to. Hello, and thank you for your reply. That's a fair (and expected) question. I have to tell you, my experiences with 13-ssl have been /very/ good. That is until I upgraded to 7-PRERELEASE. I spent quite some time (1 wk.) attempting to make it continue to work. In the final analysis, I /did/ discover that even after resolving the original problem exporting the symbols from the mod_*'s correctly, there is still an apparent signalling/timing issue. I blame that on the fact that I'm using ULE scheduling on 7, and am using BSD scheduling on all our 6.x servers. Even baring that, after starting a working version of apache13-ssl on a 7-PRE i386 box and closely monitoring it reveals that it leaks memory like sieve. So, rather than spending even more time (which I don't have) attempting to plug the hole(s), and accounting for/correcting the timing issue. I opted to take Jeremy Chadwick's gentle nudge to move to a newer version of Apache - I went kicking and screaming the whole way. :) But I spent an entire day reading the Apache 2.0, and 2.2 documentation (I'm also already subscribed to the Apache dev list). My conclusion was that the ultimate migration to 2, would be a lot smoother, and easier if moving to 2.0 - the layout of both the server, and conf files are /very/ similar (to 1.3). Further; the point changes occur at a much lower rate than that of 2.2 - overhead that my current workload cannot tolerate. In 2.0's defence; I found absolutely no issues what-so-ever with the building, installing, or running of it. It also required /far/ less resources than that of 1.3. Yet offered more threads/servers. So, it is difficult for me to find an argument to move from 2.0. The current trouble I'm encountering is clearly a PHP5 issue. As it isn't even touching the Apache 2 install during the build process. I hope I've adequately answered your question, and hope I wasn't /too/ verbose. :) Thanks again. --Chris H. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- panic: kernel trap (ignored) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: newfs + gstat locks entire machine for 20seconds
At 08:24 PM 1/30/2008, Steven Hartland wrote:
The plot thickens This stall is not just related to newfs you have to
have gstat running as well. If I do the newfs without gstat running then
no stall occurs. As soon as Im running gstat while doing the newfs then
everything locks as described.
Strange, I see the same thing sometimes.
While running
while true
do
date
sleep .5
done
Thu Jan 31 14:55:42 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:42 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:43 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:43 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:44 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:44 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:50 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:50 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:51 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:51 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:52 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:52 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:53 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:53 EST 2008
Thu Jan 31 14:55:54 EST 2008
You can see it from 44 to 50 seconds,
This is AMD64
da0 at arcmsr0 bus 0 target 0 lun 0
da0: Fixed Direct Access SCSI-5 device
da0: 166.666MB/s transfers (83.333MHz DT, offset 32, 16bit)
da0: 305175MB (624999424 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 38904C)
arcmsr0: > mem 0xe860-0xe8600fff,0xe800-0xe83f irq 18 at device
14.0 on pci2
ARECA RAID ADAPTER0: Driver Version 1.20.00.15 2007-10-07
ARECA RAID ADAPTER0: FIRMWARE VERSION V1.43 2007-4-17
arcmsr0: [ITHREAD]
Running truss on gstat shows the issue / cause I believe but I dont
know what it means:-
[truss -o t.txt -p 61629 -d]
9.008933817 nanosleep({1.0}) = 0 (0x0)
9.008969017 gettimeofday({1201742426.147393},0x0) = 0 (0x0)
9.009009804 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0) = 0 (0x0)
9.009040534 gettimeofday({1201742426.147465},0x0) = 0 (0x0)
9.009076852 clock_gettime(0,{1201742426.147501706}) = 0 (0x0)
9.009294477 sigaction(SIGTSTP,{ SIG_IGN SA_RESTART ss_t },{
0x800cb2470 SA_RESTART ss_t }) = 0 (0x0)
9.009335823 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0) = 0 (0x0)
9.009387785 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0) = 0 (0x0)
9.009457626 write(1,"\^[[4;11H 5\^[[6C2 32 467.8"...,213) = 213 (0xd5)
9.009488636 sigaction(SIGTSTP,{ 0x800cb2470 SA_RESTART ss_t },0x0) = 0 (0x0)
10.009930312 nanosleep({1.0})= 0 (0x0)
10.009963836 gettimeofday({1201742427.148388},0x0) = 0 (0x0)
10.010005182 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0)= 0 (0x0)
10.010036192 gettimeofday({1201742427.148461},0x0) = 0 (0x0)
10.010073068 clock_gettime(0,{1201742427.148497922}) = 0 (0x0)
10.010292369
mmap(0x80100,1048576,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0x0)
= 34376515584 (0x80100)
10.010327569
__sysctl(0x7fffe6c0,0x2,0x7fffe650,0x7fffe6b8,0x800844970,0x11)
= 0 (0x0)
25.052947791
__sysctl(0x7fffe650,0x3,0x80100,0x7fffe720,0x0,0x0) = 0 (0x0)
25.054030610 munmap(0x80100,1048576) = 0 (0x0)
25.055022356 sigaction(SIGTSTP,{ SIG_IGN SA_RESTART ss_t },{
0x800cb2470 SA_RESTART ss_t }) = 0 (0x0)
25.055067892 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0)= 0 (0x0)
25.055130470 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0)= 0 (0x0)
25.055230203 write(1,"\^[[4;11H1\^[[7C4 64 203.4"...,203) = 203 (0xcb)
25.055263448 sigaction(SIGTSTP,{ 0x800cb2470 SA_RESTART ss_t },0x0) = 0 (0x0)
26.055866597 nanosleep({1.0})= 0 (0x0)
26.055900400 gettimeofday({1201742443.194324},0x0) = 0 (0x0)
26.055940070 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0)= 0 (0x0)
26.055969962 gettimeofday({1201742443.194394},0x0) = 0 (0x0)
26.056009073 clock_gettime(0,{1201742443.194433649}) = 0 (0x0)
26.056240388 sigaction(SIGTSTP,{ SIG_IGN SA_RESTART ss_t },{
0x800cb2470 SA_RESTART ss_t }) = 0 (0x0)
26.056280896 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0)= 0 (0x0)
26.056334534 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0)= 0 (0x0)
26.056420299 poll({0/POLLIN},1,0)= 0 (0x0)
26.056485112 write(1,"\^[[1;6H6.046s w: 1.000s\^[[4;5"...,305) = 305 (0x131)
26.056516121 sigaction(SIGTSTP,{ 0x800cb2470 SA_RESTART ss_t },0x0) = 0 (0x0)
27.056863372 nanosleep({1.0})= 0 (0x0)
[/truss -o t.txt -p 61629 -d]
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd.
and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of
misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying,
printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it.
In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission
please telephone +44 845 868 1337
or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: [: -le: argument expected
> After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl > and friends built and installed from source (see thread: /usr/bin/objformat, > for more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache 2.0. Out of interest, why did you choose 2.0 and not 2.2 ? When I migrated away from 1.3 I originally tried 2.0 and had quite a bad time of it as I recall. So I left it a while and ended up going directly to 2.2, which has behaved beautifully. I can't solve your problem, but I can say that personal experience was 2.2 being easier to move to. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[: -le: argument expected
Hello all,
System:
FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008
Context:
After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl
and friends built and installed from source (see thread:
/usr/bin/objformat, for
more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache
2.0. I was
reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted
conf files
which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to abuse, or
attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my ill fated
attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source necessitated
increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on
this one.
To the point!
Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30).
As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues).
Current version:
2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected.
I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool.
The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE.
Other than that, all was as-was.
Error(s):
After determining that everything was acceptablr/as intended with Apache.
I moved on to building/installing php5 as cgi,cli, and module. The first
thing emitted when typing make is:
[: -le: argument expected
[: -le: argument expected
This gets emitted once more early in the configure process. Followed by:
configure.in:152: warning: AC_PROG_LEX invoked multiple times
../../lib/autoconf/programs.m4:779: AC_DECL_YYTEXT is expanded from...
aclocal.m4:2080: PHP_PROG_LEX is expanded from...
configure.in:152: the top level
The build finally /dies/ with the following otput (with context):
...
Thank you for using PHP.
config.status: creating php5.spec
config.status: creating main/build-defs.h
config.status: creating scripts/phpize
config.status: creating scripts/man1/phpize.1
config.status: creating scripts/php-config
config.status: creating scripts/man1/php-config.1
config.status: creating sapi/cli/php.1
config.status: creating main/php_config.h
config.status: executing default commands
===> Building for php5-5.2.5_1
"Makefile", line 592: warning: duplicate script for target
"main/internal_functions.lo" ignored
...
-I/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/Zend-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing
-pipe -prefer-non-pic -c
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c -o
sapi/apache/sapi_apache.lo
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c: In
function 'apache_php_module_main':
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: 'NOT_FOUND' undeclared (first use in this function)
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: for each function it appears in.)
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5.
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5.
*** Error code 1
From sapi_apache.c:
if (display_source_mode) {
zend_syntax_highlighter_ini syntax_highlighter_ini;
php_get_highlight_struct(&syntax_highlighter_ini);
if (highlight_file(SG(request_info).path_translated,
&syntax_highlighter_ini TSRMLS_CC) != SUCCESS) {
*** OFFENDING LINE (44) retval = NOT_FOUND;
}
} else {
Any chance somebody knows what is required to resolve this - pretty please?
Thank you for all your time and consideration.
--Chris H
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kld regression
on 31/01/2008 18:52 John Baldwin said the following: > On Thursday 31 January 2008 10:05:57 am Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 31/01/2008 14:39 Andriy Gapon said the following: >>> on 31/01/2008 13:07 John Baldwin said the following: On Wednesday 30 January 2008 12:39:14 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > The problem is as follows: > 1. put udf_load="YES" in loader.conf > 2. you can mount and unmount udf filesystems > 3. you can kldunload udf if no udf filesystems are mounted > 4. now mount udf fs while udf.ko is unloaded > 5. udf is auto loaded and fs is mounted > 6. unmount fs > 7. try to kldunload udf > kldunload: can't unload file: Device busy > kernel message: kldunload: attempt to unload file that was loaded by the > kernel > > Yeah, it was loaded by kernel indeed, but WTF - what is the difference > from manual/loader.conf loading and why I can not manage my modules as I > wish? Hmm, the relevant code (vfs_init.c) hasn't changed in 6.x since 6.0. > There were some changes in 7.0, but this should work in both branches. What is > the previous release that this worked on? >>> Maybe I was wrong when I called this regression, but this was very >>> surprising behavior for me. And in 5.X I did a lot of udf >>> debugging/experimenting and never encountered such a problem. Maybe I >>> always did kldload before mount, I can't tell now. >>> Anyway, this seems like an annoyance at the very least, pinning a kernel >>> module without any important reasons. >>> >> Hmm, I found one difference with previous setups: in step 1 I also have >> udf_iconv_load="YES" and udf_iconv.ko module is what seems to prevent >> udf.ko from unloading in step 7. I can actually unload udf_iconv and >> then I am able again to unload udf. >> >> Still don't understand what is a big difference here. >> >> And if I had UDF_ICONV built into kernel then I wouldn't have this >> work-around. > > Ah, I don't think we can safely unload modules loaded from the loader IIRC. > John, maybe there is a small misunderstanding: 1. udf.ko and udf_iconv.ko are both loaded by loader - I *can* unload udf.ko 2. udf_iconv.ko is loaded by loader but udf.ko is auto-loaded (by whatever) when I do mount_udf - I can not unload udf.ko unless I unload udf_iconv.ko. This is inconsistent and there is no obvious reason for things being this way. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kld regression
On Thursday 31 January 2008 07:39:52 am Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 31/01/2008 13:07 John Baldwin said the following: > > On Wednesday 30 January 2008 12:39:14 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> The problem is as follows: > >> 1. put udf_load="YES" in loader.conf > >> 2. you can mount and unmount udf filesystems > >> 3. you can kldunload udf if no udf filesystems are mounted > >> 4. now mount udf fs while udf.ko is unloaded > >> 5. udf is auto loaded and fs is mounted > >> 6. unmount fs > >> 7. try to kldunload udf > >> kldunload: can't unload file: Device busy > >> kernel message: kldunload: attempt to unload file that was loaded by the > >> kernel > >> > >> Yeah, it was loaded by kernel indeed, but WTF - what is the difference > >> from manual/loader.conf loading and why I can not manage my modules as I > >> wish? > > > > Hmm, the relevant code (vfs_init.c) hasn't changed in 6.x since 6.0. There > > were some changes in 7.0, but this should work in both branches. What is the > > previous release that this worked on? > > > > Maybe I was wrong when I called this regression, but this was very > surprising behavior for me. And in 5.X I did a lot of udf > debugging/experimenting and never encountered such a problem. Maybe I > always did kldload before mount, I can't tell now. > Anyway, this seems like an annoyance at the very least, pinning a kernel > module without any important reasons. It should work. It should definitely work in 7.0, and it should even work in 6.x though a bit more dubiously. Maybe hack your kernel to return userrefs instead of 'refs' for kldstat and see what userrefs is after you do a mount of udf and rely on the autoload. It should be 1 which means you can kldunload it (and refs should be 1 as well). -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kld regression
On Thursday 31 January 2008 10:05:57 am Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 31/01/2008 14:39 Andriy Gapon said the following: > > on 31/01/2008 13:07 John Baldwin said the following: > >> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 12:39:14 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > >>> The problem is as follows: > >>> 1. put udf_load="YES" in loader.conf > >>> 2. you can mount and unmount udf filesystems > >>> 3. you can kldunload udf if no udf filesystems are mounted > >>> 4. now mount udf fs while udf.ko is unloaded > >>> 5. udf is auto loaded and fs is mounted > >>> 6. unmount fs > >>> 7. try to kldunload udf > >>> kldunload: can't unload file: Device busy > >>> kernel message: kldunload: attempt to unload file that was loaded by the > >>> kernel > >>> > >>> Yeah, it was loaded by kernel indeed, but WTF - what is the difference > >>> from manual/loader.conf loading and why I can not manage my modules as I > >>> wish? > >> Hmm, the relevant code (vfs_init.c) hasn't changed in 6.x since 6.0. There > >> were some changes in 7.0, but this should work in both branches. What is the > >> previous release that this worked on? > >> > > > > Maybe I was wrong when I called this regression, but this was very > > surprising behavior for me. And in 5.X I did a lot of udf > > debugging/experimenting and never encountered such a problem. Maybe I > > always did kldload before mount, I can't tell now. > > Anyway, this seems like an annoyance at the very least, pinning a kernel > > module without any important reasons. > > > > Hmm, I found one difference with previous setups: in step 1 I also have > udf_iconv_load="YES" and udf_iconv.ko module is what seems to prevent > udf.ko from unloading in step 7. I can actually unload udf_iconv and > then I am able again to unload udf. > > Still don't understand what is a big difference here. > > And if I had UDF_ICONV built into kernel then I wouldn't have this > work-around. Ah, I don't think we can safely unload modules loaded from the loader IIRC. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Documentation: Installing FreeBSD 7.0 via serial console and PXE
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I believe the options you're referring to are LOADER_TFTP_SUPPORT and > LOADER_NFS_SUPPORT. Even if you define LOADER_NFS_SUPPORT=no, loader(8) > will still resort to using NFS. I've confirmed this on a couple > occasions by defining PXE_DEBUG=1 and looking at the output. NFS, from > what I can tell, is needed regardless because TFTP offers no way (AFAIK) > of handling directory structures. This is speculation on my part, but > the confirmation that there's no way to do a pure TFTP-based install has > been verified. I have installed FreeBSD via PXE a lot of times and managed to avoid using NFS every single time. Very brief notes about how to do it is included on this page: http://borderworlds.dk/writings/freebsd_on_toshiba_portege_r100.html -- Christian Laursen ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Allowing access to IP/MAC pairs only
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:30:53AM -0800, Szemer?dy G?bor wrote: > We have feeBSD 6.2 machines with local subnets on the servers and would > like to allow access to the internet only for workstations with exact > IP/MAC pairs and deny access for not predefined pairs. > Is there a solution in firewall settings? You need not any firewall for that. Just use "ifconfig em0 staticarp" disable ARP table updates for interface em0 (replace em0 with your interface name) and load IP/MAC pairs into ARP table with "arp -f arps_em0" command where file named "arps_em0" contains those pairs: 10.10.10.10 00:11:22:33:44:55 10.10.10.11 00:11:22:33:44:56 10.10.10.12 00:11:22:33:44:57 Eugene Grosbein ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Problem with FreeBSD installation
I have machine with FreeBSD 4.11. I want to upgrade system and install FreeBSD 6.3, but I have some problem. System boot from CDROM system stoped on screen with selection choise of booting (default, single user mode and other). System dont't write any error message... Can somebody help me? dmesg: CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz (3194.56-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf41 Stepping = 1 Features=0xbfebfbff Hyperthreading: 2 logical CPUs real memory = 1072562176 (1047424K bytes) avail memory = 1041047552 (1016648K bytes) Changing APIC ID for IO APIC #0 from 0 to 2 on chip Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #0 IOAPIC #0 intpin 2 -> irq 0 Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #1 FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor motherboard: 2 CPUs cpu0 (BSP): apic id: 0, version: 0x00050014, at 0xfee0 cpu1 (AP): apic id: 1, version: 0x00050014, at 0xfee0 io0 (APIC): apic id: 2, version: 0x00178020, at 0xfec0 io1 (APIC): apic id: 3, version: 0x00178020, at 0xfec1 Preloaded elf kernel "kernel" at 0xc02d7000. Warning: Pentium 4 CPU: PSE disabled Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled md0: Malloc disk Using $PIR table, 12 entries at 0xc00fde60 npx0: on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcib0: on motherboard IOAPIC #0 intpin 18 -> irq 2 IOAPIC #0 intpin 17 -> irq 5 pci0: on pcib0 pcib1: at device 3.0 on pci0 pci1: on pcib1 em0: port 0xc000-0xc01f mem 0xfa10-0xfa11 irq 2 at device 1.0 on pci1 em0: Speed:N/A Duplex:N/A pcib2: at device 28.0 on pci0 IOAPIC #1 intpin 3 -> irq 7 pci2: on pcib2 pci2: (vendor=0x11ab, dev=0x5041) at 4.0 irq 7 pcib3: at device 30.0 on pci0 IOAPIC #0 intpin 19 -> irq 10 pci3: on pcib3 pci3: at 9.0 irq 5 em1: port 0xd100-0xd13f mem 0xf900-0xf901 irq 10 at device 10.0 on pci3 em1: Speed:N/A Duplex:N/A isab0: at device 31.0 on pci0 isa0: on isab0 atapci0: port 0xf000-0xf00f,0-0x3,0-0x7,0-0x3,0-0x7 irq 2 at device 31.2 on pci0 ata0: at 0x1f0 irq 14 on atapci0 ata1: at 0x170 irq 15 on atapci0 pci0: (vendor=0x8086, dev=0x25a4) at 31.3 irq 5 orm0: at iomem 0xc-0xc7fff on isa0 pmtimer0 on isa0 fdc0: at port 0x3f0-0x3f5,0x3f7 irq 6 drq 2 on isa0 atkbdc0: at port 0x60,0x64 on isa0 atkbd0: flags 0x1 irq 1 on atkbdc0 kbd0 at atkbd0 vga0: at port 0x3c0-0x3df iomem 0xa-0xb on isa0 sc0: at flags 0x100 on isa0 sc0: VGA <16 virtual consoles, flags=0x300> sio0 at port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4 flags 0x10 on isa0 sio0: type 16550A APIC_IO: Testing 8254 interrupt delivery APIC_IO: routing 8254 via IOAPIC #0 intpin 2 ipfw2 initialized, divert disabled, rule-based forwarding enabled, default to accept, logging limited to 10 packets/entry by default DUMMYNET initialized (011031) SMP: AP CPU #1 Launched! ad0: DMA limited to UDMA33, non-ATA66 cable or device ad0: 114473MB [232581/16/63] at ata0-master UDMA33 ata1-master: DMA limited to UDMA33, non-ATA66 cable or device acd0: CDROM at ata1-master UDMA33 Mounting root from ufs:/dev/ad0s1a -- Vasilyev Igor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kld regression
on 31/01/2008 14:39 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 31/01/2008 13:07 John Baldwin said the following: >> On Wednesday 30 January 2008 12:39:14 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> The problem is as follows: >>> 1. put udf_load="YES" in loader.conf >>> 2. you can mount and unmount udf filesystems >>> 3. you can kldunload udf if no udf filesystems are mounted >>> 4. now mount udf fs while udf.ko is unloaded >>> 5. udf is auto loaded and fs is mounted >>> 6. unmount fs >>> 7. try to kldunload udf >>> kldunload: can't unload file: Device busy >>> kernel message: kldunload: attempt to unload file that was loaded by the >>> kernel >>> >>> Yeah, it was loaded by kernel indeed, but WTF - what is the difference >>> from manual/loader.conf loading and why I can not manage my modules as I >>> wish? >> Hmm, the relevant code (vfs_init.c) hasn't changed in 6.x since 6.0. There >> were some changes in 7.0, but this should work in both branches. What is >> the >> previous release that this worked on? >> > > Maybe I was wrong when I called this regression, but this was very > surprising behavior for me. And in 5.X I did a lot of udf > debugging/experimenting and never encountered such a problem. Maybe I > always did kldload before mount, I can't tell now. > Anyway, this seems like an annoyance at the very least, pinning a kernel > module without any important reasons. > Hmm, I found one difference with previous setups: in step 1 I also have udf_iconv_load="YES" and udf_iconv.ko module is what seems to prevent udf.ko from unloading in step 7. I can actually unload udf_iconv and then I am able again to unload udf. Still don't understand what is a big difference here. And if I had UDF_ICONV built into kernel then I wouldn't have this work-around. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: panic: vm_fault: fault on nofualt entry, addr: 81423000
> I think the problem is that the header for the FACP table crossed a page > boundary so we had to map 2 pages to map the header, but the code assumes > only 1 page is needed so when the second page was mapped, it overlapped with > the page holding the XSDT. Here's a fix: Excellent, that fixes it on my machine! Preseumbaly this fix will also work on 6.3 which has the same problem. is it also likely to be required on amd64 - I notice there is a separate separate madt.c file for 64 it. If you want to close the PR's then they are kern/119716 and kern/117918 Now that it's booting with ACPI I can see that the box has some other issues, but will look into those when I get back to wrok (am currfenttly off sick - testing has to be done by emailing a colleague with prceise instructions, not the easiest way to debug a kernel) cheers, -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Minidumps in -STABLE and "smaller than physical memory"
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:06:40PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:16:36PM +0200, Peter Holm wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:15:47PM +0400, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:14:33AM +0100, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 11:44 +0300, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > >I've noticed (with the 2-day old RELENG_6) that I still can't > > > > > configure my > > > > > 256Mb swap partition as a dump device for i386 machine with 1Gb RAM > > > > > despite > > > > > having minidumps enabled: > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] sysctl debug.minidump > > > > > debug.minidump: 1 > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] dumpon -v /dev/ad0s3b > > > > > /dev/ad0s3b is smaller than physical memory > > > > > > > > > > Am I correctly understand that minidumps should lift the restriction > > > > > > > > > > sizeof(dumpdev) >= sizeof(RAM) > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/dumpon/dumpon.c.diff?r1=1.22&r2=1.23 > > > > needs to be MFC'd. > > > > > > > I sent an MFC request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > >From time to time I've had problems with minidumps on HEAD. Calling > > doadump() seems to work ok, but after a reset there's no dump. I > > haven't had time to test this systematically. Has anybody else seen > > this problem? > > > I think this was the same problem as was diagnosed (minidumps + amd64 + > SMP). Though it's not fixed yet, it's understood and its damage is > avoided. > > > Cheers, > -- > Ruslan Ermilov > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FreeBSD committer No, this was and is i386. After changing "doadump;reset" to doadump;continue" it would seem that the dumps has a higher chance of making it to the disk. -- Peter ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kld regression
on 31/01/2008 13:07 John Baldwin said the following: > On Wednesday 30 January 2008 12:39:14 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: >> The problem is as follows: >> 1. put udf_load="YES" in loader.conf >> 2. you can mount and unmount udf filesystems >> 3. you can kldunload udf if no udf filesystems are mounted >> 4. now mount udf fs while udf.ko is unloaded >> 5. udf is auto loaded and fs is mounted >> 6. unmount fs >> 7. try to kldunload udf >> kldunload: can't unload file: Device busy >> kernel message: kldunload: attempt to unload file that was loaded by the >> kernel >> >> Yeah, it was loaded by kernel indeed, but WTF - what is the difference >> from manual/loader.conf loading and why I can not manage my modules as I >> wish? > > Hmm, the relevant code (vfs_init.c) hasn't changed in 6.x since 6.0. There > were some changes in 7.0, but this should work in both branches. What is the > previous release that this worked on? > Maybe I was wrong when I called this regression, but this was very surprising behavior for me. And in 5.X I did a lot of udf debugging/experimenting and never encountered such a problem. Maybe I always did kldload before mount, I can't tell now. Anyway, this seems like an annoyance at the very least, pinning a kernel module without any important reasons. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kld regression
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 12:39:14 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > > The problem is as follows: > 1. put udf_load="YES" in loader.conf > 2. you can mount and unmount udf filesystems > 3. you can kldunload udf if no udf filesystems are mounted > 4. now mount udf fs while udf.ko is unloaded > 5. udf is auto loaded and fs is mounted > 6. unmount fs > 7. try to kldunload udf > kldunload: can't unload file: Device busy > kernel message: kldunload: attempt to unload file that was loaded by the > kernel > > Yeah, it was loaded by kernel indeed, but WTF - what is the difference > from manual/loader.conf loading and why I can not manage my modules as I > wish? Hmm, the relevant code (vfs_init.c) hasn't changed in 6.x since 6.0. There were some changes in 7.0, but this should work in both branches. What is the previous release that this worked on? -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kldload: Unsupported file type
On Thursday 31 January 2008 12:28:02 am Bruce M Simpson wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >>> It is printed whenever a kernel module is loaded. > >>> The modules load OK. Nothing special or different about them. > >>> > >>> > ... > > The kernel is a link_elf type object I believe, so you have to have it. > > > > > > That follows (I was reading this the other day 'cause we don't support > weak ELF symbols in the kernel for C++) however, why is the message > being triggered now? > > Could it be ET_REL ? > There have been no major changes to linking for the 6.3 buildkernel > target IIRC. > > > BTW only my amd64 system appears to be affected. The problem is that .ko's on amd64 are handled by link_elf_obj.c and not link_elf.c, thus if link_elf.c is first in the list of linker file handlers, then every .ko on amd64 is first going to try link_elf.c which fails and emits the error and then get loaded successfully by link_elf_obj.c. Probably what should happen is that the linker error message should be cached somehow and only print out the last error if the overall load fails. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Allowing access to IP/MAC pairs only
Greetings, Szemerédy Gábor wrote: Hello list! We have feeBSD 6.2 machines with local subnets on the servers and would like to allow access to the internet only for workstations with exact IP/MAC pairs and deny access for not predefined pairs. Is there a solution in firewall settings? man arp and look at options -s and -S. Thanks ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Allowing access to IP/MAC pairs only
Hi, On 31 Jan 2008, at 18:30, Szemerédy Gábor wrote: Hello list! We have feeBSD 6.2 machines with local subnets on the servers and would like to allow access to the internet only for workstations with exact IP/MAC pairs and deny access for not predefined pairs. Is there a solution in firewall settings? In ipfw, something like: allow ip from to any mac any allow ip from to any mac any ... deny ip from any to any Beware that MAC addresses are given in the order dest, src. -- Bob Bishop +44 (0)118 940 1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax +44 (0)118 940 1295 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Allowing access to IP/MAC pairs only
Hello list! We have feeBSD 6.2 machines with local subnets on the servers and would like to allow access to the internet only for workstations with exact IP/MAC pairs and deny access for not predefined pairs. Is there a solution in firewall settings? Thanks ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
