Re: 2.6.11.8 + UML/x86_64 (2.6.12-rc3+) = oops

Antoine Martin
2005-05-08T18:19:24Z

On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 12:45 -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 05:35:02PM +0100, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > The only extra patch applied on top of what is on the web page (as per
> > Jeff's instructions) is the mconsole-exec patch, and AFAIK it wouldn't
> > affect the code above.
>
> mconsole-exec, if it's the patch I'm thinking of, is a patch to the UML
> kernel, not to the host.
Yep, that's the one, I thought the question was about the guest.
The host is running 2.6.11.8 - no extra patches at all.

> > The really weird thing is that the processes are still running, but ps
> > -ef shows an empty string in place of the process name:
> > (and the terminal which launched the instance got control back)
> > I am now rebuilding a new kernel on another test box, let me know what
> > to do to provide better debug information.
>
> It's not unusual for UML processes to have strange names (including empty
> ones) on the host.
Strange thing is, they had names up to the point where I got the
segfault.

Antoine