Re: BUG? atleast >=2.6.19-rc5, x86 chroot on x86_64

[Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>]

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 21:31 -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <26586.1165356671@redhat.com>
> 
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:11:11 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> 
> > > I only have 32-bit userspace.  When I run your program against
> > > a directory on a JFS filesystem (msdos ioctls not supported)
> > > I get this on vanilla 2.6.19:
> > 
> > Can I just check?  You're using an x86_64 CPU in 64-bit mode with a 64-bit
> > kernel, but with a completely 32-bit userspace?
> 
> It's FC5 i386 so there's no way any 64-bit userspace code is in there.
> (I have a cross-compiler only for building kernels.)  Having a pure
> 32-bit userspace lets me switch between i386 and x86_64 kernels
> without having to maintain two separate Linux installs.
> 
> > A question for you: Why is userspace assuming that it'll get ENOTTY rather
> > than EINVAL?
> 
> I'm not sure it is, but that's what it used to get.
> 
> Kasper, what problems (other that the annoying message) are you having?
if it had only been the messages i wouldnt have complained.
the thing is, when i get these messages, the app provoking them acts
very strange, and in some cases, my system simply hardlocks.

and i am very very sure its because of this, i can run with the kernel
(atleast with rc5 i had that long) for 10 days, and then chroot in, run
the 32bit apps, and within hours of using, hardlock.

wine seems to be worst at provoking hardlock, however i encountered one
i am sure was caused by java(the 32bit one inside chroot).

as i said in my post yesterday, my chroot doesent have access to my vfat
partitions, so i dont believe thats it.
>