On mercoledì 22 agosto 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:05:53PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > It's not the first time we hit effects of such bugs, is it?
>
> I don't remember seeing this before.
>
> > The .note.ABI-tag fix, time ago, may be about the same problem.
>
> Are you re
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:05:53PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> It's not the first time we hit effects of such bugs, is it?
I don't remember seeing this before.
> The .note.ABI-tag fix, time ago, may be about the same problem.
Are you referring to
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torv
On giovedì 16 agosto 2007, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:04:55PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 03:26:39PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > The crash is in this section:
> > >
> > > __uml_setup_start = .;
> > > .uml.setup.init : { *(.uml.setup.init) }
> > >
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:04:55PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 03:26:39PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> >
> > The crash is in this section:
> >
> > __uml_setup_start = .;
> > .uml.setup.init : { *(.uml.setup.init) }
> > __uml_setup_end = .;
>
> This looks like a classi
Hi Jeff,
I'm really sorry, but I forget to mention, that I had the same problems on a
RedHat RH4 (x86_64) too.
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:30:56AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > this sounds like something really stupid and bad... why would the kernel
> > need to have a per-distro note se
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 03:26:39PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
>
> The crash is in this section:
>
> __uml_setup_start = .;
> .uml.setup.init : { *(.uml.setup.init) }
> __uml_setup_end = .;
This looks like a classic bug.
You wanted this:
.uml.setup.init : {
__uml_setup_start = .;
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:30:56AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> this sounds like something really stupid and bad... why would the kernel
> need to have a per-distro note section???
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:39:06AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> Huh!? Why do we need a SuSE section?
On Thu, Au
Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ This is both 2.6.24 and -stable material ]
>
> SuSE seems to require that binaries have a .note.SuSE section.
> Without it, UML segfaults if any parameters are passed on the command
> line.
This doesn't make any sense. You must have misanalyzed this.
-A
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:30:56AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:24 -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > [ This is both 2.6.24 and -stable material ]
> >
> > SuSE seems to require that binaries have a .note.SuSE section.
> > Without it, UML segfaults if any parameters are pas
* Jeff Dike ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [ This is both 2.6.24 and -stable material ]
>
> SuSE seems to require that binaries have a .note.SuSE section.
> Without it, UML segfaults if any parameters are passed on the command
> line.
Huh!? Why do we need a SuSE section?
thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubs
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:24 -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> [ This is both 2.6.24 and -stable material ]
>
> SuSE seems to require that binaries have a .note.SuSE section.
> Without it, UML segfaults if any parameters are passed on the command
> line.
this sounds like something really stupid and bad.
[ This is both 2.6.24 and -stable material ]
SuSE seems to require that binaries have a .note.SuSE section.
Without it, UML segfaults if any parameters are passed on the command
line.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
arch/um/kernel/dyn.lds.S |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+
12 matches
Mail list logo
