[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

please don't use glibc 2.3.1-6 on linux kernel 2.2 (2.4 is ok)

Please don't use glibc 2.3.1-6 on linux kernel 2.2.x. glibc 2.3.1-6
has bug of getdents(), so "ls" or all getdents() operation are
failed. It's no problem on kernel 2.4.

If you're in trouble with this problem: (1) boot kernel 2.4, and
downgrade glibc from -6 to -5, or (2) stop using old kernel 2.2,
switch into 2.4 :-)

The bug is as follows: glibc 2.3.1-6 uses getdents64() in first. On
kernel 2.4, this system call is succeeded. But getdents64() is
implemented after kernel 2.4.0-test7. So, this system call is failed
on kernel 2.2, then glibc tries falling back to getdents().  But this
"falling back" condition check has bug, all getdents() operations are
always failed.

I was already fixed it in the current debian glibc cvs. Jeff Bailey is
concentrating to prepare glibc 2.3.1-7 with some other fixes.  Please
wait and use glibc 2.3.1-7, if you are kernel 2.2 user.

I'm sorry cutting this thread, but I want more people notice this

At Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:22:16 -0600,
Hank Marquardt wrote:
> Interesting -- I upgraed a couple 2.4 boxes and they were OK ... and
> others reported the same; but good to know (and report) that all may not
> be well in 2.4land either.
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 05:30:41PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:08, Hank Marquardt wrote:
> > > thanks Russell -- it's worse than that though ... dpkg won't work either
> > > ... I had to manually get an old libc by using ar and tar on an old deb
> > > in the tmp directory, then do an export LD_PRELOAD of that lib ... that
> > > got basic stuff back and i was able then downgrade properly with dpkg --
> > > it seems to only effect folks running 2.2 level kernels ... a bug has
> > > been filed.
> > 
> > Just to clarify, the problem may only be as severe as you experienced on 2.2 
> > kernels, but the problem I experienced happens on 2.4 kernels.
> > 
> > I don't want anyone to think that they are safe just because they use a 
> > 2.4kernel.

-- gotom

Reply to: