Hi,
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:10:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It's asking for a lot of unwritable zeroed space. See this:
> >> LOAD 0x00 0x08048000 0x08048000 0xb7354 0x1b7354 R E
> >> 0x1000 LOAD
Hi,
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:10:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
It's asking for a lot of unwritable zeroed space. See this:
LOAD 0x00 0x08048000 0x08048000 0xb7354 0x1b7354 R E
0x1000 LOAD
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:10:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
It's asking for a lot of unwritable zeroed space. See this:
LOAD 0x00 0x08048000 0x08048000 0xb7354 0x1b7354 R E 0x1000
LOAD 0x0b7354 0x08200354 0x08200354
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:10:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> We could just remove the printk and stick a comment over it. If the
> application later tries to access the not-there pages then it'll just
> fault.
>
> However I worry if there is some way in which we can leave unzeroed memory
>
Hi!
> > > > I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
> > >
> > > This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
> > > working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
Hi!
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:10:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
We could just remove the printk and stick a comment over it. If the
application later tries to access the not-there pages then it'll just
fault.
However I worry if there is some way in which we can leave unzeroed memory
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:10:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
It's asking for a lot of unwritable zeroed space. See this:
LOAD 0x00 0x08048000 0x08048000 0xb7354 0x1b7354 R E 0x1000
LOAD 0x0b7354 0x08200354 0x08200354
here is some way in which we can leave unzeroed memory
accessible to the application, although it's hard to see how that could
happen.
Daniel, Pavel cruelly chopped you off the Cc when replying. What's your
diagnosis on the below?
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:27:59 +0100
Fro
Hi!
> > > I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
> >
> > This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
> > working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
>
> Why does clearing the BSS fail? Are the program headers bogus?
> (readelf -l).
No
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:51:06PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
>
> This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
> working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
Why does clearing the BSS fail?
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:51:06 +0100
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
>
> This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
> working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
>
> Signed-off-by:
Hi!
> I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi!
> I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
Yes, this fixes it: kylix application now works for me.
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb
Hi!
> > > How should one set about reproducing this problem?
> >
> > IIRC, Some minimal "personal" version can be downloaded from borland.com.
>
> Well I'd prefer that we not back out the whole patch. Could someone please
> test with something like the below, let us know exactly where it's
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morton wrote:
Bah. That's what happens when you fix stuff.
What's kylix? The Borland C++ builder thing?
How should one set about reproducing this problem?
You don't need the kylix environment or libraries, you just need to run any
binary that was compiled with kylix. Teamspeak
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morton wrote:
Bah. That's what happens when you fix stuff.
What's kylix? The Borland C++ builder thing?
How should one set about reproducing this problem?
You don't need the kylix environment or libraries, you just need to run any
binary that was compiled with kylix. Teamspeak
Hi!
How should one set about reproducing this problem?
IIRC, Some minimal personal version can be downloaded from borland.com.
Well I'd prefer that we not back out the whole patch. Could someone please
test with something like the below, let us know exactly where it's falling
Hi!
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
Yes, this fixes it: kylix application now works for me.
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb
Hi!
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:51:06 +0100
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:51:06PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
Why does clearing the BSS fail? Are the
Hi!
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
This seems to be minimal fix to get Kylix application back to the
working state... Maybe it is good idea for 2.6.11?
Why does clearing the BSS fail? Are the program headers bogus?
(readelf -l).
No idea, probably
2005 23:27:59 +0100
From: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.11-rc3: Kylix application no longer works?
Hi!
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
This seems to be minimal fix to get
Grzegorz Kulewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> # fs/binfmt_elf.c
> >>> # 2005/01/17 13:37:56-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +43 -19
> >>> # [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# fs/binfmt_elf.c
# 2005/01/17 13:37:56-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +43 -19
# [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in fs/binfmt_elf.c and
fs/compat.c
#
I think so. For a short period we applied this
Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > # fs/binfmt_elf.c
> > # 2005/01/17 13:37:56-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +43 -19
> > # [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in fs/binfmt_elf.c
> > and fs/compat.c
> > #
>
> I think so. For a short period we applied this patch to the
Andrew Morton wrote:
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
# This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
#
# ChangeSet
# 2005/01/21 13:42:18-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Merge nuts.davemloft.net:/disk1/BK/sparcwork-2.6
# into
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have some obscure Kylix application here... It started gets
> misteriously killed in 2.6.11-rc3 and -rc3-mm1...
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/slovnik/bin$ strace ./Slovnik
> execve("./Slovnik", ["./Slovnik"], [/* 32 vars */]) = 0
> +++ killed by SIGKILL +++
Hi!
I have some obscure Kylix application here... It started gets
misteriously killed in 2.6.11-rc3 and -rc3-mm1...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/slovnik/bin$ strace ./Slovnik
execve("./Slovnik", ["./Slovnik"], [/* 32 vars */]) = 0
+++ killed by SIGKILL +++
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/slovnik/bin$ ldd ./Slovnik
Hi!
I have some obscure Kylix application here... It started gets
misteriously killed in 2.6.11-rc3 and -rc3-mm1...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/slovnik/bin$ strace ./Slovnik
execve(./Slovnik, [./Slovnik], [/* 32 vars */]) = 0
+++ killed by SIGKILL +++
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/slovnik/bin$ ldd ./Slovnik
Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have some obscure Kylix application here... It started gets
misteriously killed in 2.6.11-rc3 and -rc3-mm1...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/slovnik/bin$ strace ./Slovnik
execve(./Slovnik, [./Slovnik], [/* 32 vars */]) = 0
+++ killed by SIGKILL +++
[EMAIL
Andrew Morton wrote:
I wonder if reverting the patch will restore the old behaviour?
# This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
#
# ChangeSet
# 2005/01/21 13:42:18-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Merge nuts.davemloft.net:/disk1/BK/sparcwork-2.6
# into
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# fs/binfmt_elf.c
# 2005/01/17 13:37:56-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +43 -19
# [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in fs/binfmt_elf.c
and fs/compat.c
#
I think so. For a short period we applied this patch to the Gentoo 2.6.10
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# fs/binfmt_elf.c
# 2005/01/17 13:37:56-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +43 -19
# [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in fs/binfmt_elf.c and
fs/compat.c
#
I think so. For a short period we applied this
Grzegorz Kulewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# fs/binfmt_elf.c
# 2005/01/17 13:37:56-08:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +43 -19
# [SPARC64]: Missing user access return value checks in
fs/binfmt_elf.c and
36 matches
Mail list logo
