On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 16:03 +0200, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Friday, 7 בDecember 2007, Oded Arbel wrote:
> > The first call that is interesting is of course the open()
> > for /etc/protocols. In the second test (after I did ls /etc/protocols)
> > it looks normal:
> > open("/etc/protocols", O_RDONLY|0x80000 /* O_??? */) = 8
> > but in the first test is looks like this:
> > open("/etc/protocols", O_RDONLY|0x80000 /* O_??? */) = -530
> > 
> > Reading man 2 open, it says that open() should return -1 in case of an
> > error.
> > 
> > I'm still looking as to what -530 means, but I've yet to find anything
> > on the web. 
> 
> You wouldn't. An strace would show you the return value (which should be -1
> for an error, and a translation to errno definition). The -530 heavily hints
> that you have somehow corrupted glibc (or kernel, or both).

I found the problem ! Apparently glibc 2.7 has introduced a new open
flag called O_CLOEXEC (close on exec - something for security IIUC),
which conflicts with a kernel flag that has the same value and is part
of the "TUX web server" patch
( http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/tux/TUX-2.2-Manual/intro.html )
that is available in RHEL kernels. 
As a result, RHEL kernels are incompatible with glibc 2.7 and above and
let this serve as a warning to all - never upgrade a machine that uses
an RHEL kernel to glibc 2.7.

http://www.nabble.com/glibc-2.7-3-MIGRATED-to-testing-causes-system-to-stop-starting-new-programs-td14233678.html#a14234070
http://www.nabble.com/-Bug-libc-5227--New%
3A-opendir-and-O_CLOEXEC-problems-with-Linux-2.6.9-5.ELsmp-kernel-td13449217.html
(these links - hope they didn't break - talk about 2.6.9, but the same
holds for 2.6.18 from RHEL 5).

Anyway - I'm downgrading to glibc 2.6 now, and I hope nothing breaks.
Thanks for everyone that tried to help :-)

--
Oded



================================================================To unsubscribe, 
send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to