On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > On 5 Sep 02 at 19:45, Roy Bixler wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:53:26PM -0500, Roy Bixler wrote: > > > Has anyone gotten NCPFS mounts to work in Woody? Actually, I have but > > > only on my old '386 box. However, on the Sparc, I get this: > > > > > > # ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server /mnt > > > Logging into SERVER as RCB > > > Password: ******** > > > ncpmount: Invalid argument in mount(2) > > > > > > A 'dmesg' command shows the following: > > > ncp_read_super: kernel requires mount version 3 > > It should work, but only if you are using sparc binary on sparc kernel, > or sparc64 binary on sparc64 kernel, otherwise sizeof(int), sizeof(long), > sizeof(__kernel_uid_t) and other may differ between kernel and user.
That's probably it - the machine has an Ultrasparc IIe processor but, as far as I understand about the Debian Woody distribution, the binaries are all built in 32-bit mode. > I have > patch to ncpfs & kernel (2.5.x) to pass mount options through ASCII string, > if you are interested. > > But before you'll try that, try first > "ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server -3 /mnt" and > "ncpmount -S server -U rcb -A server -4 /mnt". > > 2.4.x kernels should use mount version 4 (which allows for 32bit uid/gid), > but if you'll look at arch/sparc64/kernel/sys_sparc32.c, > do_ncp_super_data_conv, you'll find that this function (1) does not check > version at all, (2) works only with -3 version, and (3) I do not see where > this function actually copies unchanged members: version, ncp_fd, time_out, > retry_count and flags... The only thing that changes if I execute those two commands is, with the former, I no longer get the warning about "ncp_read_super: kernel requires mount version 3". Otherwise, they both complain about "ncpmount: Invalid argument in mount(2)". > But if you'll rebuild ncpmount as a 64bit binary, > problems should disappear without need to fix kernel. I used gcc-3.0 to build a 64-bit 'ncpmount' binary and I get a 'Segmentation fault' when I try to execute it. I would be willing to try kernel patches, especially in a 2.4.x kernel. I'll even experiment with 2.5 kernel patches if I can get one of those to build and it is stable enough. Thanks, Roy Bixler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
