[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bodo Eggert) writes:
>> I observerd the same on SuSE9.0. Therefore, i just used the binaries
>> built in a Suse8.2 environment hoping that this works as well. So far
>> it does.
>> But of course i am interested in a 'clean' solution, i.e. the
>> vserver-utils compiled with gcc
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[util-vserver and suse/gcc 3.3.1]
> I observerd the same on SuSE9.0. Therefore, i just used the binaries
> built in a Suse8.2 environment hoping that this
> works as well. So far it does.
> But of course i am interested in a 'clean' solution, i.e.
> the
Hi,
it seems to be the optimization. Compiled with -O0 all works fine, without the tests #
11, 201 and 202 of testme.sh fail.
I'll try the latest beta now.
Schlomo
--
Schlomo Schapiro
Senior Consultant
Solution Center Novell/Linux
mikado AG
Bülowstraße 66
10783 Berlin-Schöneberg
Tel.: (030)
>
> I played around a little more and found out that it seem to be the
> util-vserver package that is guilty.
>
> I compiled it on an older machine (gcc 2.95.3) and it worked well. The
> version compiled with gcc 3.3.1 on SuSE9.0 doesn't work correctly.
>
> Did anyone else observer such a probl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Schlomo Schapiro") writes:
> I played around a little more and found out that it seem to be the
> util-vserver package that is guilty.
>
> I compiled it on an older machine (gcc 2.95.3) and it worked well. The
> version compiled with gcc 3.3.1 on SuSE9.0 doesn't work correctly.
Hi,
I played around a little more and found out that it seem to be the util-vserver
package that is guilty.
I compiled it on an older machine (gcc 2.95.3) and it worked well. The version
compiled with gcc 3.3.1 on SuSE9.0 doesn't work correctly.
Did anyone else observer such a problem ? Or doe
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:26:32AM +0100, Schlomo Schapiro wrote:
> Hi,
> cat /proc/self/status shows:
>
> CapPrm, CapEff, CapBset: feff
>
> Shouldn't it be all f ?
>
> I tried now also the 1.3.8rc1 patch, no difference at all (applied & compiled clean
> on SuSE9.0 with gcc 3.3.1).
>
> als
Hi,
cat /proc/self/status shows:
CapPrm, CapEff, CapBset: feff
Shouldn't it be all f ?
I tried now also the 1.3.8rc1 patch, no difference at all (applied & compiled clean on
SuSE9.0 with gcc 3.3.1).
also testme.sh still fails with test 201 and 202.
Is there anybody else using SuSE 9.0, ma
What does "cat /proc/self/status" tell you (on the host server)?
Am Fre, den 27.02.2004 schrieb Schlomo Schapiro um 10:40:
> Hi Herbert & List,
>
> I tried it as you suggested. Vanilla 2.4.25 with 1.26 vserver patch, static kernel.
>
> testme.sh reports that 201 and 202 failed (the tests with ch
Hi Herbert & List,
I tried it as you suggested. Vanilla 2.4.25 with 1.26 vserver patch, static kernel.
testme.sh reports that 201 and 202 failed (the tests with chcontext and fakeinit).
vserver start still fails with the chroot error message (permission denied) and a test
of
chcontext --ctx 10
Dear List,
since I didn't get any answers to my chroot problem, maybe you can tell me if there is
any other place where I could turn to for help.
The problem is that I really would like to show off Linux's might in this area but
just now it doesn't work.
Maybe you can post me some proven-to-w
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 05:40:46PM +0100, Schlomo Schapiro wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> since I didn't get any answers to my chroot problem, maybe you can tell me if there
> is any other place where I could turn to for help.
>
> The problem is that I really would like to show off Linux's might in th
could you try the same thing without the openwall patches?
Am Don, den 26.02.2004 schrieb Schlomo Schapiro um 17:40:
> Maybe you can post me some proven-to-work kernel versions ? Or take a look at my
> mail http://list.linux-vserver.org/archive/vserver/msg06308.html and try to do the
> same test
13 matches
Mail list logo
