Bug#170507: Patch not applied?
Hi, it looks like the patch submitted for this bug got lost somewhere
between upstream CVS and Debian source. I'm looking at the source for
glibc 2.3.1-8, and it seems that the patch never got applied. Here is the
result of "grep -nr SHMLBA */bits" in glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux:
alpha/bits/shm.h:31:#define SHM_RND 020000 /* round attach address to SHMLBA */
alpha/bits/shm.h:39:#define SHMLBA (__getpagesize ())
hppa/bits/shm.h:32:#define SHM_RND 020000 /* round attach address to SHMLBA */
ia64/bits/shm.h:31:#define SHM_RND 020000 /* round attach address to SHMLBA */
ia64/bits/shm.h:39:#define SHMLBA (1024 * 1024)
mips/bits/shm.h:31:#define SHM_RND 020000 /* round attach address to SHMLBA */
mips/bits/shm.h:39:#define SHMLBA (__getpagesize ())
powerpc/bits/shm.h:31:#define SHM_RND 020000 /* round attach address to SHMLBA */
powerpc/bits/shm.h:39:#define SHMLBA (__getpagesize ())
s390/bits/shm.h:32:#define SHM_RND 020000 /* round attach address to SHMLBA */
s390/bits/shm.h:40:#define SHMLBA (__getpagesize ())
sparc/bits/shm.h:32:#define SHM_RND 020000 /* round attach address to SHMLBA */
sparc/bits/shm.h:40:#define SHMLBA (__getpagesize ())
x86_64/bits/shm.h:31:#define SHM_RND 020000 /* round attach address to SHMLBA */
x86_64/bits/shm.h:39:#define SHMLBA (__getpagesize ())
I took a closer look at hppa/bits/shm.h and saw that the patch was NOT
applied, at least not after the #define SHM_UNLOCK line which appears in
the preceding context of the patch. The relevant context of shm.h is as
follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/* Commands for `shmctl'. */
#define SHM_LOCK 11 /* lock segment (root only) */
#define SHM_UNLOCK 12 /* unlock segment (root only) */
/* Type to count number of attaches. */
typedef unsigned long int shmatt_t;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, the patch lines are missing.
HTH.
T
--
There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those
who can't.
Reply to: