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

getdents64 Re: please don't use glibc 2.3.1-6 on linux kernel 2.2 (2.4 is ok)



On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 10:25:36AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> 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
> problem.
> 
> 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.
> > 

I had that getdents64 problem this afternoon on a 2.2.20 box.  Fixed by 

cd /lib
rsync -a -e ssh * [my.borked.remote]:/lib   # cruft-R-us

>From a functioning up to date unstable box to the broken box.

Does that imply it is not so much the package as the dependancies?



-- 

Christopher F. Miller, Publisher                               cfm@maine.com
MaineStreet Communications, Inc           208 Portland Road, Gray, ME  04039
1.207.657.5078                                         http://www.maine.com/
Content/site management, online commerce, internet integration, Debian linux



Reply to: