Re: 2 ports broken after gcc import

From: Kenneth Culver (culverk_at_yumyumyum.org)
Date: 08/30/03

  • Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: Someone help me understand this...?" 
    Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:22:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>

    > I think I missed the message that this is a response to, but here's an
    > answer to the question: UFS_ACL controls only the introduction of ACL
    > code into UFS1 and UFS2 file systems, and enables conditional use of
    > ACLs code if the ACLs flag is set on a file system. If the ACLs flag is
    > not set on a file system, the UFS1/UFS2 code is intended to run along
    > its original permissions-based code path. Devfs isn't based on UFS, and
    > so it should be unaffected by the UFS_ACL flag. If there's a definite
    > causal relationship between UFS_ACL and the nmap failure, I can't help
    > but wonder if it's a result of a timing, code layout, or memory
    > allocation change of some sort. I wouldn't rule out a bug in the ACL
    > code, but it seems somewhat unlikely as, without the ACLs flag set, the
    > code path in the UFS code should be minimally changed...
    >
    > The best path to track this down is to try to figure out for sure which
    > system call is failing, compare expected vs. wire network transmissions,
    > and see if we can reproduce this in a simpler test program.
    >
    > We've recently made some changes in how the permissions of new objects
    > are calculated using ACLs; they were made somewhat before the gcc
    > changes, I believe, but it might also be interesting to see test cases
    > from before both changes, in between the changes, and after both, to
    > confirm that it was definitely the gcc change that kicked off the
    > problem, rather than the UFS change. Finally, I'd like to know what, if
    > any, optimization flags you're using for the kernel compile...
    >
    Well, don't worry too much, I went back and checked the kernel config I
    used for the kernel that was having problems, and it did indeed have
    IPFILTER compiled in, BUT I had no rules loading. Both of the rules files
    were empty. (That's basically what I said in my previous message). I just
    took me the better part of a night to sort out what I had on that box and
    remember what I did. Anyway, like I said, I won't be back on that box
    until Tuesday so I'll have to let you know which knob I turned then...
    although if it WAS the firewall that's really wierd since I had no rules
    loaded, and my other box that never had the problem DID have rules loaded.

    Ken
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: Someone help me understand this...?"