On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:03:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:59:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > This modification was done because mprotect returned EFAULT instead of
> > ENOMEM, that was simply POSIX violation. The actual problem is linux
> > kernel 2.4. B
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:59:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> This modification was done because mprotect returned EFAULT instead of
> ENOMEM, that was simply POSIX violation. The actual problem is linux
> kernel 2.4. But in order to work glibc 2.3.5 on etch, we need to fix
> adhoc patch to c
> if (errno != ENOMEM && errno != EFAULT)
Thanks, this is one of the best bug that I have produced, I go to
sleep now...
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:59:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> - if (errno != ENOMEM) /* Unexpected failure mode. */
> + if (errno != (ENOMEM | EFAULT)) /* Unexpected failure
> mode. */
I don't think errno will ever have the value of (ENOMEM | EFAULT).
Shoul
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:59:17PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> --- sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dl-execstack.c.gotom2005-08-18
> 20:55:21.448088096 +0900
> +++ sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dl-execstack.c 2005-08-18
> 20:57:02.500725760 +0900
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
>
At Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:12:31 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I don't know what the exact problem is - Does this problem occur with
> > 2.4 kernel? Can all furious PaX reports be fixed using 2.6 kernel?
>
> This is separate from the PaX problems - it's stock 2.4. I don't know
> why it happens
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:48:36PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:09:38 -0400,
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > 08:47 mprotect(0xb000, 4096,
> > > PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC|PROT_GROWSDOWN) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid
> > > argument)
> > > 08:47 mprotect(0xbfff8000, 32768,
At Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:09:38 -0400,
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > 08:47 mprotect(0xb000, 4096,
> > PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC|PROT_GROWSDOWN) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid
> > argument)
> > 08:47 mprotect(0xbfff8000, 32768, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC) =
> > -1 EFAULT (Bad address)
> > 08:55
I don't know if this is helping at all but I got this error and I fixed it by
just downloading the library files:
/lib/libacl.so.1.1.0
and
/lib/libattr.so.1.1.0
After that, I was able to:
apt-get -f install and set up the new libc6.
I am not sure what cause the problem, but this is a quick fix un
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 06:38:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This kernel was compiled on another machine and installed by hand
> > instead of going through kpkg. Unfortunately I don't have the sources
> > anymore, but I don't recall installing any patches, which I understand
> > would be ne
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 05:42:03PM -0400, Joe Mason wrote:
> > So, even though running etch/sid against a woody kernel is indeed not
> > supported, that doesn't seem the issue here.
> > Instead, Joe, it looks like you *are* running a kernel on this machine that
> > has grsec enabled, even if you d
unmerge 321724
reassign 321724 libelfg0 0.8.5-1
unmerge 321723
reassign 321723 libgdbm3 1.8.3-2
unmerge 321721
reassign 321721 libssl0.9.7 0.9.7e-3
severity 321721 minor
unmerge 321720
reassign 321720 libgcrypt11 1.2.0-11.1
severity 321720 minor
thanks
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 11:28:41AM +0200, Jer
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> unmerge 321724
Bug#321724: cannot enable executable stack as shared object requires: Error 14
Bug#321717: cannot enable executable stack as shared object requires: Error 14
Bug#321718: Upgrade caused many libs to complain about "executable st
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 01:51:35AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> reassign 321717 glibc 2.3.5-1
> reassign 321718 glibc 2.3.5-1
> reassign 321720 glibc 2.3.5-1
> reassign 321721 glibc 2.3.5-1
> reassign 321723 glibc 2.3.5-1
> reassign 321724 glibc 2.3.5-1
> merge 321718 321717 321720 321721 321723
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 01:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Google suggests this has something to do with "pax", which I've never
> > heard of and have certainly never installed or enabled.
>
> > -- System Information:
> > Debian Release: testing/unstable
> > APT prefers stable
> > APT polic
#321723: cannot enable executable stack as shared object requires: Error 14
Bug#321724: cannot enable executable stack as shared object requires: Error 14
Merged 321717 321718 321720 321721 321723 321724.
> severity 321718 important
Bug#321718: Upgrade caused many libs to complain about "execut
reassign 321717 glibc 2.3.5-1
reassign 321718 glibc 2.3.5-1
reassign 321720 glibc 2.3.5-1
reassign 321721 glibc 2.3.5-1
reassign 321723 glibc 2.3.5-1
reassign 321724 glibc 2.3.5-1
merge 321718 321717 321720 321721 321723 321724
severity 321718 important
thanks
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:56:10AM -0
17 matches
Mail list logo
