Package: kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686
Version: 2.6.8-16
Severity: normal
*** Please type your report below this line ***
Current setup: server protected by APC UPS. Monitoring of UPC status
using apcupsd package via USB.
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address f05c7670
printing
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005, Luca PERSICO wrote:
I tried out your distro on a laptop PC (Pentium III 900MHz); it is not a
brand PC, it is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] PC, thus it is quite easy for me to have
trouble installing GNU/Linux on it, so that till now the only distro
that has been acceptable has
Package: linux-image-2.6.12-1-k7
Version: 2.6.12-6
Severity: important
amverify started, then shortly later (after the first thing was done
verifying, I think) these managed to make it to syslog. As you can see,
it got the bug message, then rebooted itself a few minutes later:
Sep 9 01:12:27
Moritz Muehlenhoff schrieb am Friday, den 09. September 2005:
Micah Anderson wrote:
Neither of these advisories is a typical DTSA, as we normally we only do
advisories for things that are blocked from reaching testing by some other
issue, but I think that it would be good to do these two
Micah Anderson wrote:
Micah Anderson wrote:
Neither of these advisories is a typical DTSA, as we normally we only do
advisories for things that are blocked from reaching testing by some other
issue, but I think that it would be good to do these two advisories
because
of the sheer
Horms schrieb am Friday, den 09. September 2005:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:17:25PM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be a good idea to get a DTSA (Debian Testing Security
Advisory) issued for 2.4.27 and 2.6.8.
That seems fine to me, at a glance. Though there have
linux-2.6_2.6.12-6_m68k.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
linux-headers-2.6.12-1_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
linux-headers-2.6.12-1-amiga_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
linux-image-2.6.12-1-amiga_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
linux-image-amiga_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
Accepted:
linux-headers-2.6-amiga_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-headers-2.6-amiga_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
linux-headers-2.6-atari_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
to pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-headers-2.6-atari_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
linux-headers-2.6-bvme6000_2.6.12-6_m68k.deb
to
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:57:47PM -0700, Ryan Lovett wrote:
Are there plans to have more architectures enable the newer accounting file
format via CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT_V3 ? I'm actually only interested in
amd64.
$ egrep 'CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT_V3=y|linux-2.6-2.6.12/debian/arch/' \
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:23:30AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
Naturally, we'll still need to have things
that end up being run on the user's system in perl or shell (shell for
things that can't use or are too simplistic perl, and perl for other
things).
We are
Package: kernel-image-2.6.8-2-k7
Version: 2.6.8-16
Followup-For: Bug #312255
If I boot the system using kernel 2.6, after the message Starting GNOME
DISPLAY MANAGER: gdm, a messy image appears, similar to my desktop
background: except for the mouse, everything is blocked. To go on I have
to
Hello everyone,
I'm trying to detect a debian kernel from uname -r.
My suggestion would be to add a -debian at the end of the localversion
of kernels _patched_/modified by debian, and to leave the localversion
completely _empty_ (or an unchanged localversion compared to the
mainline defconfig)
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:50:03PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
This breaks the accounting format, so it's a change that needs a lot
of thought.
Okay, thanks for considering this.
The file http://www.physik3.uni-rostock.de/tim/kernel/utils/acct/readme.txt
mentions:
Note that the --raw
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: important
Tags: security
[Severity important only, as amd64 is not yet officially in the archive]
These patches were posted as part of the stable review cycle on linux-kernel,
they're probably available in git already.
CAN-2005-2490: (local privilege escalation on
Package: kernel-image-2.4.27-2-sparc32
Version: 2.4.27-9
Severity: important
I had an old sparc which was running a 2.2.20 kernel (yes, old) and
libc6 2.2.5-11.5. I tried to upgrade it (apt-get install dist-upgrade)
and it choked. In particular, the kernel depends on a newer version of libc:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Marc Horowitz wrote:
I had an old sparc which was running a 2.2.20 kernel (yes, old) and
libc6 2.2.5-11.5. I tried to upgrade it (apt-get install dist-upgrade)
and it choked. In particular, the kernel depends on a newer version of libc:
This is a known issue, arising
Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Marc Horowitz wrote:
I had an old sparc which was running a 2.2.20 kernel (yes, old) and
libc6 2.2.5-11.5. I tried to upgrade it (apt-get install dist-upgrade)
and it choked. In particular, the kernel depends on a newer version
Package: kernel-image-2.6.8-11-amd64-k8
Version: 2.6.8-14
Severity: minor
After reconfiguration of permissions on a mounted SMB volume, the Kernel
decided to segfault (system continued to run, blocking processes that
were accessing the affected volume).
Here is what /var/log/messages had to
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Marc Horowitz wrote:
Shouldn't the system somehow warn me I have a gun aimed at my foot
*before* I pull the trigger?
Marc
Well, it did prevent you from installing a broken combination of things.
And there is a documented workaround. Anyway, nothing can be
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:16:38PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm trying to detect a debian kernel from uname -r.
My suggestion would be to add a -debian at the end of the localversion
of kernels _patched_/modified by debian, and to leave the localversion
completely
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:50:03PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:57:47PM -0700, Ryan Lovett wrote:
Are there plans to have more architectures enable the newer accounting file
format via CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT_V3 ? I'm actually only interested in
amd64.
$
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:05:58AM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote:
Moritz Muehlenhoff schrieb am Friday, den 09. September 2005:
Micah Anderson wrote:
Neither of these advisories is a typical DTSA, as we normally we only do
advisories for things that are blocked from reaching testing by
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:49:18PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Micah Anderson wrote:
I think it would be a good idea to get a DTSA (Debian Testing Security
Advisory) issued for 2.4.27 and 2.6.8.
Neither of these advisories is a typical DTSA, as we normally we only do
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:30:39AM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote:
Horms schrieb am Friday, den 09. September 2005:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:17:25PM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be a good idea to get a DTSA (Debian Testing Security
Advisory) issued for 2.4.27
24 matches
Mail list logo
