Your message dated Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:40:15 +0200
with message-id
<CAOfDtXNGkJfDa+gj_k=k5umynia_m-hglfcfnco4xdbmboo...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#633460: pu: package freebsd-utils/8.1-4+squeeze1
has caused the Debian Bug report #601803,
regarding not compiled with ieee80211 (WLAN) support
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
601803: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=601803
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-686
Version: 8.1-5
Severity: normal
[ this is resend #1 since I did not receive any reply in hours
although my email works otherwise. This time the attachment is not
included. ]
ifconfig wlan0 create wlandev ath0
fails with
ifconfig: SIOCIFCREATE2: Bad address
on my aspire one laptop. I recompiled freebsd-utils with debugging
symbols and set a breakpoint at ifclone.c just before
if (ioctl(s, SIOCIFCREATE2, &ifr) < 0)
Here gdb shows the ifr as
(gdb) p ifr
$1 = {ifr_name = "wlan0\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000", ifr_ifru =
{ifru_addr = {sa_len = 0 '\000', sa_family = 0 '\000', sa_data = '\000'
<repeats 13 times>}, ifru_dstaddr = {sa_len = 0 '\000', sa_family = 0 '\000',
sa_data = '\000' <repeats 13 times>}, ifru_broadaddr = {sa_len = 0 '\000',
sa_family = 0 '\000', sa_data = '\000' <repeats 13 times>}, ifru_netmask =
{sa_len = 0 '\000', sa_family = 0 '\000', sa_data = '\000' <repeats 13 times>},
ifru_buffer = {length = 0, buffer = 0x0}, ifru_flags = {0, 0}, ifru_index = 0,
ifru_jid = 0, ifru_metric = 0, ifru_mtu = 0, ifru_phys = 0, ifru_media = 0,
ifru_data = 0x0, ifru_cap = {0, 0}}}
(gdb) x/100xb (char*)&ifr
0xbfbfe7bc: 0x77 0x6c 0x61 0x6e 0x30 0x00 0x00 0x00
0xbfbfe7c4: 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
0xbfbfe7cc: 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
0xbfbfe7d4: 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
0xbfbfe7dc: 0xb9 0xc0 0x89 0xa9 0x02 0x00 0x00 0x00
0xbfbfe7e4: 0x98 0x21 0x05 0x08 0x28 0xe8 0xbf 0xbf
0xbfbfe7ec: 0x16 0xa5 0x04 0x08 0x06 0x00 0x00 0x00
0xbfbfe7f4: 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x06 0x00 0x00 0x00
0xbfbfe7fc: 0x60 0x28 0x05 0x08 0xc0 0xff 0x08 0x28
0xbfbfe804: 0x98 0x21 0x05 0x08 0x20 0xdd 0x06 0x28
0xbfbfe80c: 0x06 0x00 0x00 0x00 0xc0 0x3f 0x05 0x08
0xbfbfe814: 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0xcb 0x03 0x05 0x08
0xbfbfe81c: 0x60 0x28 0x05 0x08
I then recompiled kfreebsd-8 with debugging symbols and DDB/KDB
support (and documented this as
http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD_FAQ#Q.HowdoIdebugthekernel.3F
) and saw that copyin() in wlan_clone_create() fails since its third
argument, caddr_t params, contains just 0x10 which can not be a valid
pointer.
"trace" shows that the third argument of ifioctl is 0xc32477e0 so I
dumped its contents with the kernel debugger. Unfortunately I do not
know how to save debugger output to a file so I took a photo of the
screen instead (see the attached 41KB png file).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: kfreebsd-i386 (i686)
Kernel: kFreeBSD 8.1-1-686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-686 depends on:
ii freebsd-utils 8.1-2+b1 FreeBSD utilities needed for GNU/k
ii kldutils 8.1-2+b1 tools for managing kFreeBSD module
Versions of packages kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-686 recommends:
pn libc0.1-i686 <none> (no description available)
kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-686 suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 8.2+ds1-1
2011/7/13 Adam D. Barratt <[email protected]>:
> Apologies if I'm missing something, but in that case why is #601803
> still open? There seemed to be a little confusion at the end of the
> report as to whether it was fixed or not.
TBH, I don't really know. It was marked as fixed and later unmarked
as a result of my control request [1], but it's clearly not what I
intended.
In any case, it was indeed fixed with 8.2+ds1-1. Sorry about this confusion.
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=188;bug=601803
--
Robert Millan
--- End Message ---
