* 2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
@ 2006-07-15 14:40 Tilman Schmidt
2006-07-15 22:42 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tilman Schmidt @ 2006-07-15 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1133 bytes --]
After installing a 2.6.18-rc1-mm2 kernel without sysctl syscall support
on a standard SuSE 10.0 system, I find the following in my dmesg:
> [ 36.955720] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
> [ 39.656410] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
> [ 43.304401] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
> [ 45.717220] warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
> [ 45.789845] warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
which at face value seems to contradict the statement in the help text
for the CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL option that "Nothing has been using the
binary sysctl interface for some time time now". (sic)
Meanwhile, the second part of that sentence that "nothing should break"
by disabling it seems to hold true anyway. The system runs fine, and
activating CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL in the kernel doesn't seem to have any
effect apart from changing the word "removed" to "obsolete" in the above
messages.
HTH
Tilman
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc
Bonn, Germany
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 253 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
2006-07-15 14:40 2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call Tilman Schmidt
@ 2006-07-15 22:42 ` Andrew Morton
2006-07-15 23:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-07-15 23:31 ` Michal Piotrowski
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2006-07-15 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tilman Schmidt; +Cc: linux-kernel, Eric W. Biederman
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:40:36 +0200
Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:
> After installing a 2.6.18-rc1-mm2 kernel without sysctl syscall support
> on a standard SuSE 10.0 system, I find the following in my dmesg:
>
> > [ 36.955720] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
> > [ 39.656410] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
> > [ 43.304401] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
> > [ 45.717220] warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
> > [ 45.789845] warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
>
> which at face value seems to contradict the statement in the help text
> for the CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL option that "Nothing has been using the
> binary sysctl interface for some time time now". (sic)
>
> Meanwhile, the second part of that sentence that "nothing should break"
> by disabling it seems to hold true anyway. The system runs fine, and
> activating CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL in the kernel doesn't seem to have any
> effect apart from changing the word "removed" to "obsolete" in the above
> messages.
Thanks.
Eric, that tends to make the whole idea inviable, doesn't it?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
2006-07-15 22:42 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2006-07-15 23:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-07-15 23:31 ` Michal Piotrowski
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2006-07-15 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Tilman Schmidt, linux-kernel
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:40:36 +0200
> Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:
>
>> After installing a 2.6.18-rc1-mm2 kernel without sysctl syscall support
>> on a standard SuSE 10.0 system, I find the following in my dmesg:
>>
>> > [ 36.955720] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>> > [ 39.656410] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>> > [ 43.304401] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>> > [ 45.717220] warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
>> > [ 45.789845] warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
>>
>> which at face value seems to contradict the statement in the help text
>> for the CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL option that "Nothing has been using the
>> binary sysctl interface for some time time now". (sic)
>>
>> Meanwhile, the second part of that sentence that "nothing should break"
>> by disabling it seems to hold true anyway. The system runs fine, and
>> activating CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL in the kernel doesn't seem to have any
>> effect apart from changing the word "removed" to "obsolete" in the above
>> messages.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Eric, that tends to make the whole idea inviable, doesn't it?
Close but not quite.
It is the glibc pthread library testing to see if you have an SMP
kernel by greping for SMP in the UTS_VERSION string. glibc has
always had a fallback to using /proc/sys/kernel/version so it will
behave properly, and uname is really the right interface to this
data.
My next step in testing is to remove that stupid usage from glibc
and see if any other warnings happen. I don't have time to
finish setting up that test before I leave for Ottowa.
I have already sent Ulrich Drepper a patch to have glibc just use
uname. The patch was posted to both linux-kernel and libc-alpha.
So yes my understanding was not quite correct, but while I have the
details wrong I don't know that the substance is wrong. I need to
take this at least to the next step so a convincing argument
can be made for keeping sys_sysctl.
If sys_sysctl really proves to be used and useful we can say
yes people really do use things thing. We really need to support
this. We can then revert the 2003 deprecated comment from the header
file and drop patches that do not properly maintain the binary
interface to sys_sysctl.
I don't really care either way but I want a good case made so
sys_sysctl can stop being walking dead. I hate the attitude
of have a interface from kernel to user space where people
do not care if they break backwards binary compatibility.
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
2006-07-15 22:42 ` Andrew Morton
2006-07-15 23:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2006-07-15 23:31 ` Michal Piotrowski
2006-07-16 0:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michal Piotrowski @ 2006-07-15 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Tilman Schmidt, linux-kernel, Eric W. Biederman
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:40:36 +0200
> Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:
>
>> After installing a 2.6.18-rc1-mm2 kernel without sysctl syscall support
>> on a standard SuSE 10.0 system, I find the following in my dmesg:
>>
>>> [ 36.955720] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
>>> [ 39.656410] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
>>> [ 43.304401] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
>>> [ 45.717220] warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
>>> [ 45.789845] warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
>> which at face value seems to contradict the statement in the help text
>> for the CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL option that "Nothing has been using the
>> binary sysctl interface for some time time now". (sic)
>>
>> Meanwhile, the second part of that sentence that "nothing should break"
>> by disabling it seems to hold true anyway. The system runs fine, and
>> activating CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL in the kernel doesn't seem to have any
>> effect apart from changing the word "removed" to "obsolete" in the above
>> messages.
>
> Thanks.
>
date and salsa also use sysctl.
warning: process `date' used the removed sysctl system call
warning: process `salsa' used the removed sysctl system call
> Eric, that tends to make the whole idea inviable, doesn't it?
How about _very_ long term to remove sysctl (i.e. January 2010)?
Regards,
Michal
--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
(http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/wiki/)
Signed-off-by: Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotowski@gmail.com>
diff -uprN -X linux-mm/Documentation/dontdiff linux-mm-clean/Documentation/ABI/obsolete/sysctl linux-mm/Documentation/ABI/obsolete/sysctl
--- linux-mm-clean/Documentation/ABI/obsolete/sysctl 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-mm/Documentation/ABI/obsolete/sysctl 2006-07-16 01:22:51.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+What: sys_sysctl
+Date: January 2010
+Contact: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
+Description:
+ sys_sysctl uses binary paths that have been found to be a major
+ pain to maintain and use. The interface in /proc/sys is now
+ the primary and what everyone uses.
+
+ Nothing has been using the binary sysctl interface for some time
+ time now so nothing should break if you disable sysctl syscall
+ support, and you kernel will get marginally smaller.
+
+Users:
+
+date, ls, salsa, showconsole, touch
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
2006-07-15 23:31 ` Michal Piotrowski
@ 2006-07-16 0:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-07-16 0:50 ` Michal Piotrowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2006-07-16 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Piotrowski; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Tilman Schmidt, linux-kernel
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:40:36 +0200
>> Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:
>>
>>> After installing a 2.6.18-rc1-mm2 kernel without sysctl syscall support
>>> on a standard SuSE 10.0 system, I find the following in my dmesg:
>>>
>>>> [ 36.955720] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>>>> [ 39.656410] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>>>> [ 43.304401] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>>>> [ 45.717220] warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
>>>> [ 45.789845] warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
>>> which at face value seems to contradict the statement in the help text
>>> for the CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL option that "Nothing has been using the
>>> binary sysctl interface for some time time now". (sic)
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the second part of that sentence that "nothing should break"
>>> by disabling it seems to hold true anyway. The system runs fine, and
>>> activating CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL in the kernel doesn't seem to have any
>>> effect apart from changing the word "removed" to "obsolete" in the above
>>> messages.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> date and salsa also use sysctl.
>
> warning: process `date' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `salsa' used the removed sysctl system call
>
>> Eric, that tends to make the whole idea inviable, doesn't it?
>
> How about _very_ long term to remove sysctl (i.e. January 2010)?
That may be reasonable. However please confirm that everything
that you have complaints from is using libpthreads.
As there is one use of libpthreads that is using sysctl
in a very non-serious way.
With libptrheads modified to use uname and not sysctl I am not seeing that
message. I thought I had broken my test setup by forgetting to compile
glibc with --with-tls but I managed but I managed to get things working
again using LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1
Still not the best data point but a very interesting one.
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call
2006-07-16 0:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2006-07-16 0:50 ` Michal Piotrowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michal Piotrowski @ 2006-07-16 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric W. Biederman; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Tilman Schmidt, linux-kernel
On 16/07/06, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:40:36 +0200
> >> Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After installing a 2.6.18-rc1-mm2 kernel without sysctl syscall support
> >>> on a standard SuSE 10.0 system, I find the following in my dmesg:
> >>>
> >>>> [ 36.955720] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> > call
> >>>> [ 39.656410] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> > call
> >>>> [ 43.304401] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> > call
> >>>> [ 45.717220] warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
> >>>> [ 45.789845] warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> >>> which at face value seems to contradict the statement in the help text
> >>> for the CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL option that "Nothing has been using the
> >>> binary sysctl interface for some time time now". (sic)
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, the second part of that sentence that "nothing should break"
> >>> by disabling it seems to hold true anyway. The system runs fine, and
> >>> activating CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL in the kernel doesn't seem to have any
> >>> effect apart from changing the word "removed" to "obsolete" in the above
> >>> messages.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
> > date and salsa also use sysctl.
> >
> > warning: process `date' used the removed sysctl system call
> > warning: process `salsa' used the removed sysctl system call
> >
> >> Eric, that tends to make the whole idea inviable, doesn't it?
> >
> > How about _very_ long term to remove sysctl (i.e. January 2010)?
>
> That may be reasonable. However please confirm that everything
> that you have complaints from is using libpthreads.
ldd /bin/date
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7f22000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x4aab9000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x49ca3000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x49f38000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x49c86000)
ldd /bin/ls
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7f23000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x4aab9000)
libselinux.so.1 => /lib/libselinux.so.1 (0x45a71000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x49ca3000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x49f38000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x49c86000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x49dd8000)
libsepol.so.1 => /lib/libsepol.so.1 (0x41ad5000)
ldd /sbin/salsa
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7fd7000)
libasound.so.2 => /lib/libasound.so.2 (0x4100f000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x49ca3000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x49dde000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x49dd8000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x49f38000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x49c86000)
ldd /bin/touch
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7fa2000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x4aab9000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x49ca3000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x49f38000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x49c86000)
I can confirm this, but I don't have a "showconsole".
>
> As there is one use of libpthreads that is using sysctl
> in a very non-serious way.
>
> With libptrheads modified to use uname and not sysctl I am not seeing that
> message. I thought I had broken my test setup by forgetting to compile
> glibc with --with-tls but I managed but I managed to get things working
> again using LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1
>
> Still not the best data point but a very interesting one.
>
> Eric
>
Regards,
Michal
--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
(http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/wiki/)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-07-16 0:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-07-15 14:40 2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system call Tilman Schmidt
2006-07-15 22:42 ` Andrew Morton
2006-07-15 23:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-07-15 23:31 ` Michal Piotrowski
2006-07-16 0:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-07-16 0:50 ` Michal Piotrowski
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox