Is it a bug ?

Is it a bug ?

[Rebert Luc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

Hello,
I have try many times to compile a kernel 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 for my k6-2 (it 
is a desktop computer i don't need pcmia as a module or compiled in the 
kernel so i haven't stick it) but every time there si a bug when i make "make 
modules_install" I can see this bug !!!  Can you help me please ? I think 
it's a bug, what do you think about this ?

make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/mm'
make -C  arch/i386/lib modules_install
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/lib'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `modules_install'.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/lib'
cd /lib/modules/2.4.18; \
mkdir -p pcmcia; \
find kernel -path '*/pcmcia/*' -name '*.o' | xargs -i -r ln -sf ../{} pcmcia
if [ -r System.map ]; then /sbin/depmod -ae -F System.map  2.4.18; fi
depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/2.4.18/kernel/fs/binfmt_elf.o
depmod: 	empty_zero_page
depmod: 	get_user_pages
make: *** [_modinst_post] Error 1

A big thanks !!!!

REBERT Luc


[-- Attachment #2: public_key.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 1485 bytes --]

Re: Is it a bug ?

[Marc-Christian Petersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 971 bytes --]

Hi Rebert,

> I have try many times to compile a kernel 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 for my k6-2 (it
> is a desktop computer i don't need pcmia as a module or compiled in the
> kernel so i haven't stick it) but every time there si a bug when i make
> "make modules_install" I can see this bug !!!  Can you help me please ? I
> think it's a bug, what do you think about this ?

> depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in /lib/modules/2.4.18/kernel/fs/binfmt_elf.o
> depmod:         empty_zero_page
> depmod:         get_user_pages
> make: *** [_modinst_post] Error 1

for 2.4.18 this is true, but I think it cannot be true for 2.4.19. The missing 
things were added in 2.4.19-pre1. Patch attached for 2.4.18.

-- 
Kind regards
        Marc-Christian Petersen

http://sourceforge.net/projects/wolk

PGP/GnuPG Key: 1024D/569DE2E3DB441A16
Fingerprint: 3469 0CF8 CA7E 0042 7824 080A 569D E2E3 DB44 1A16
Key available at www.keyserver.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.


[-- Attachment #2: fixit.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 967 bytes --]

diff -Naur -X /home/marcelo/lib/dontdiff tmp/linux/arch/i386/kernel/i386_ksyms.c linux/arch/i386/kernel/i386_ksyms.c
--- tmp/linux/arch/i386/kernel/i386_ksyms.c	Mon Feb 25 20:28:49 2002
+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/i386_ksyms.c	Mon Feb 25 20:04:47 2002
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_cmos_time);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(apm_info);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(gdt);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(empty_zero_page);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_IOVIRT
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__io_virt_debug);
diff -Naur -X /home/marcelo/lib/dontdiff tmp/linux/mm/memory.c linux/mm/memory.c
--- tmp/linux/mm/memory.c	Mon Feb 25 20:28:51 2002
+++ linux/mm/memory.c	Mon Feb 25 20:04:48 2002
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
 #include <linux/iobuf.h>
 #include <linux/highmem.h>
 #include <linux/pagemap.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
 
 #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
 #include <asm/uaccess.h>
@@ -523,6 +523,8 @@
 	i = -EFAULT;
 	goto out;
 }
+
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_user_pages);
 
 /*
  * Force in an entire range of pages from the current process's user VA,

Is it a bug ??

[Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi]

Dear XFS Gurus,

I am using "Linux tintin 2.6.25-gentoo-r6 #2 SMP PREEMPT Sun Jul 13 10:50:58
IST 2008 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz GenuineIntel
GNU/Linux

While working I got I/O error and file system has been shutdown.

I had to run xfs_repair and now file system is working fine.

This happened several time until i repair the file system.

Is this a bug or due to hardware failure .....??

I do not know given info is enough to isolate anything, but i am happy to
provide more info if you need.

Cheers
Tharindu


[   37.074883] br0: port 2(qtap1) entering forwarding state
[   57.179699] Filesystem "sda3": XFS internal error xfs_trans_cancel at
line 1163 of file fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c.  Caller 0xffffffff80352b66
[   57.179699] Pid: 3757, comm: gconfd-2 Tainted: P         2.6.25-tintin #2
[   57.179699]
[   57.179699] Call Trace:
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff80331fd1>] xfs_error_report+0x3c/0x3e
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff80352b66>] ? xfs_create+0x3f3/0x477
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff8034cacc>] xfs_trans_cancel+0x65/0x102
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff80352b66>] xfs_create+0x3f3/0x477
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff8035c80c>] xfs_vn_mknod+0x165/0x266
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff8035c928>] xfs_vn_create+0xb/0xd
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff802a0923>] vfs_create+0x8d/0x102
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff802a3584>] open_namei+0x1ae/0x6a0
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff802a0032>] ? __lookup_hash+0x55/0x11e
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff802971f5>] do_filp_open+0x28/0x4b
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff80296f79>] ? get_unused_fd_flags+0x113/0x121
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff80297269>] do_sys_open+0x51/0xd2
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff80297313>] sys_open+0x1b/0x1d
[   57.179699]  [<ffffffff8020be8b>] system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80
[   57.179699]
[   57.179699] xfs_force_shutdown(sda3,0x8) called from line 1164 of file
fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c.  Return address = 0xffffffff8034cae5
[   57.192307] Filesystem "sda3": Corruption of in-memory data detected.
Shutting down filesystem: sda3
[   57.192307] Please umount the filesystem, and rectify the problem(s)
[  134.906667] xfs_force_shutdown(sda3,0x1) called from line 420 of file
fs/xfs/xfs_rw.c.  Return address = 0xffffffff80355722
[  155.042525] XFS mounting filesystem sda3
[  155.050723] Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: sda3 (logdev: internal)
[  155.365958] Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: sda3 (logdev: internal)
[  261.328960] XFS mounting filesystem sda3
[  261.413972] Ending clean XFS mount for filesystem: sda3


-- 
Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi
In the end, It is the life in my years.


[[HTML alternate version deleted]]

Is it a bug???

[Gáspár Lajos]

Hi List,

I have a lot of these messages in my syslog:

 fw01 kernel: nf_ct_icmp: bad HW ICMP checksum IN= OUT= SRC=84.0.19.129 
DST={EXT_IP} LEN=158 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=7437 PROTO=ICMP 
TYPE=3 CODE=3 [SRC={EXT_IP} DST=84.0.19.129 LEN=130 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 
TTL=123 ID=53146 PROTO=UDP SPT=49702 DPT=12082 LEN=110 ]

Are these messages related to the REJECT target?
And if yes then there is a bug in the conntrack?

Thanx,

 Swifty

Re: Is it a bug???

[Grant Taylor]

On 11/10/08 08:44, Gáspár Lajos wrote:
> Are these messages related to the REJECT target?
> And if yes then there is a bug in the conntrack?

Please search the (recent) archives of this mailing list for a details 
description of this problem.

If I recall correctly, no this is not a NetFilter / Connection Tracking 
bug.  This has more to do with a NIC driver problem using offloading of 
some processing to the processor on the card.



Grant. . . .

is it a BUG?

[Husnu Demir]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Today I found that mistakenly I have wrote VLAN5 instead of vlan5 for
the interface name in iptables. And found out that capital letter is
not same with small letters :) When I think as *nix user it is correct
but somehow I didnot think about that. So CASE is important for iptables.






Interesting.

Best Regards,

Husnu Demir.
Network.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSTWYsAAoJEISpBAM51qlEtkAH/1xyHDvKHQFFgcja2BAqbYgc
khv+/XHjeWomKSZQGiTwo4x4BPmS6nvQ9tuw8Q8i0u7MXZp9esZ+fneWoe+cwglO
rtiHgsfRN/99lkVupQIuyf0FTm727jL3uQDIXqfMHCBZF+r6hbxZiZsFRZJ2mexG
h0thG7G3B3OBfHPldSx0Ura6qmVkP6PQoRcwHtl2LwCO520AbXV1hYyIeXSYfqNR
MB4IzGz4hpwpSkO4z3C3BYL3fDjJSSIqTYAfmsvdH5u7BomSK551TGIU8Rl1mjbP
1u3EfBQDW4L4hLxmIX8C2IAQOK9KxPb1CTYq1XfoYsFH+mK2uk88JI7C1/ITdHQ=
=MWFJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: is it a BUG?

[Tom van Leeuwen]

Too me personally case sensitivity is exactly the (default) behaviour 
that I would expect in *nix and also in iptables.

On 10/03/2013 02:42 PM, Husnu Demir wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Today I found that mistakenly I have wrote VLAN5 instead of vlan5 for
> the interface name in iptables. And found out that capital letter is
> not same with small letters :) When I think as *nix user it is correct
> but somehow I didnot think about that. So CASE is important for iptables.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Husnu Demir.
> Network.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSTWYsAAoJEISpBAM51qlEtkAH/1xyHDvKHQFFgcja2BAqbYgc
> khv+/XHjeWomKSZQGiTwo4x4BPmS6nvQ9tuw8Q8i0u7MXZp9esZ+fneWoe+cwglO
> rtiHgsfRN/99lkVupQIuyf0FTm727jL3uQDIXqfMHCBZF+r6hbxZiZsFRZJ2mexG
> h0thG7G3B3OBfHPldSx0Ura6qmVkP6PQoRcwHtl2LwCO520AbXV1hYyIeXSYfqNR
> MB4IzGz4hpwpSkO4z3C3BYL3fDjJSSIqTYAfmsvdH5u7BomSK551TGIU8Rl1mjbP
> 1u3EfBQDW4L4hLxmIX8C2IAQOK9KxPb1CTYq1XfoYsFH+mK2uk88JI7C1/ITdHQ=
> =MWFJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html