Is anyone else having stability problems on AMD64? Or am I the only one
using it?
Not only is x86 UML broken on AMD64, I am also getting (seemingly)
random crashes running 64-bit UML.
The Gentoo guests in particular randomly fail to compile code - failing
in completely random places. When you tr
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 11:00 +, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Is anyone else having stability problems on AMD64? Or am I the only one
> using it?
> Not only is x86 UML broken on AMD64, I am also getting (seemingly)
> random crashes running 64-bit UML.
> The Gentoo guests in particular randomly fail
Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 11:00 +, Antoine Martin wrote:
>> Is anyone else having stability problems on AMD64? Or am I the only one
>> using it?
>> Not only is x86 UML broken on AMD64, I am also getting (seemingly)
>> random crashes running 64-bit UML.
>> The Gentoo gue
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 16:14 +, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> > I'm the gentoo usermode-sources maintainer, and I run UML almost
> > exclusively on amd64. I have, at any given time, from 4 to 20 UMLs
> > running on my main dev box, most of them 32-bit, and I haven't had any
>> Which kernels do you have inside and outside?
> Host (outside):
> 2.6.19.2-skas3-v8.2
Note: skas3 v9 has some problems, but I tried that too.
And I wouldn't blame the guest builds either. These guest kernels have
worked for many people in the past, including me. And the image has not
changed.
>>> Which kernels do you have inside and outside?
>> Host (outside):
>> 2.6.19.2-skas3-v8.2
>
> Okay, that's one big difference. I have a stock kernel (well,
> gentoo-sources) on the outside, not a SKAS3 patched kernel. Maybe that
> makes a difference on amd64?
I wouldn't think so, as it is alwa
>>> I have downgraded the x86 boxes to 2.6.15.7 and these are up and
>>> running again. But I can't do that for all of them, and this is just
>>> not an option for some of the amd64 boxes.
>>
>> My setup is:
> Thanks for that. That is very similar to mine.
> I don't think this has anything to do
Antoine Martin wrote:
I have downgraded the x86 boxes to 2.6.15.7 and these are up and
running again. But I can't do that for all of them, and this is just
not an option for some of the amd64 boxes.
>>>
>>> My setup is:
>> Thanks for that. That is very similar to mine.
>> I don't t
Antoine Martin wrote:
> Antoine Martin wrote:
> I have downgraded the x86 boxes to 2.6.15.7 and these are up and
> running again. But I can't do that for all of them, and this is just
> not an option for some of the amd64 boxes.
My setup is:
>>> Thanks for that. That is very simi
>> On fully up to date Fedora Core 6 x86_64, the kernel does display
>> something before crashing:
>> # uname -a
>> Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.18-1.2869.fc6 #1 SMP Wed Dec 20 14:51:34
>> EST 2006 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>> # ./kernel32-2.6.19.2
>> Checking that ptrace can change syste
Joel Palmius wrote:
> Confirmed on my athlon64 gentoo setup. I've been running 2.6.14.3 as
> host kernel for ages (since I was too wimpy to try to upgrade a host
> kernel remote on a machine that required binary proprietary drivers).
>
> On 2.6.14.3 x86_64 all my 32bit UMLs run fine with various
master linux-2.6.18-gentoo-r6 # grep -i security .config
CONFIG_EXT2_FS_SECURITY=y
CONFIG_EXT3_FS_SECURITY=y
CONFIG_REISERFS_FS_SECURITY=y
CONFIG_JFS_SECURITY=y
CONFIG_XFS_SECURITY=y
# Security options
# CONFIG_SECURITY is not set
master linux-2.6.18-gentoo-r6 # cd ..
master src # cd linux-2.6.14.3
Confirmed on my athlon64 gentoo setup. I've been running 2.6.14.3 as host
kernel for ages (since I was too wimpy to try to upgrade a host kernel
remote on a machine that required binary proprietary drivers).
On 2.6.14.3 x86_64 all my 32bit UMLs run fine with various guest kernels
compiled in va
I tested a (host) kernel build without the *_FS_SECURITY thingies, but
with same result. I guess the problem is something else.
// Joel
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Joel Palmius wrote:
>> Confirmed on my athlon64 gentoo setup. I've been running 2.6.14.3 as
>> host kernel for
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 02:46:12PM +, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Finally someone confirms what I have been seeing for ages!
> Maybe the devs can find out what is going on now...
OK, can someone give me access to a box where this is happening?
Jeff
--
Work email
Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 02:46:12PM +, Antoine Martin wrote:
>> Finally someone confirms what I have been seeing for ages!
>> Maybe the devs can find out what is going on now...
>
> OK, can someone give me access to a box where this is happening?
Sure thing.
Just let me know
Antoine Martin wrote:
>> for me I just do
>> #gdb um/vmlinux (was compiled with -O um)
>> gdb>run ubd0=/var/opt/FedoraCore5-AMD64-root_fs eth0=tuntap,,,192.168.0.117
>> after first trap in gdb
>> gdb>handle SIGUSR1 pass nostop noprint
>> from than on its strait gdb, tell me if you need a script for
17 matches
Mail list logo
