Bug#218657: Still problems with df
Hi,
I still see this bug on my system here:
mrvn@opteron:~% df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
df: `/': Invalid argument
df: `/proc': Invalid argument
df: `/boot': Invalid argument
df: `/dev/pts': Invalid argument
mrvn@opteron:~% uname -a
Linux opteron 2.6.0-test11 #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003 x86_64 GNU/Linux
mrvn@opteron:~% cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.0-test11 (root@opteron) (gcc version 3.3.2 20030908 (Debian prerelease)) #1 SMP Mon Dec 8 11:31:17 CET 2003
mrvn@opteron:~% dpkg -l coreutils libc6
ii coreutils 5.0.91-2 The GNU core utilities
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone
Looking at fs/compat.c in 2.6.0-test11 I see the patch present in the
bugreport was included. All it seems to do is change "Bad address" to
"Invalid argument".
Older glibc, like the 2.3.2-7.biarch1 version used for debian-amd64
sarge, work fine though:
sh-2.05b# /tmp/df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
rootfs 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /
/dev/root 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /
/dev/hda1 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /boot
sh-2.05b# file tmp/df
tmp/df: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.2.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
sh-2.05b# ldd tmp/df
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x5555a000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
sh-2.05b# df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
rootfs 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /
/dev/root 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /
/dev/hda1 3937284 1381472 2355804 37% /boot
sh-2.05b# file /bin/df
/bin/df: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
sh-2.05b# ldd /bin/df
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000002a9566c000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000002a95556000)
MfG
Goswin
PS: 2.6 seems to be the prefered kernel for amd64 systems and they are
getting more common.
PPS: I will compile a 2.4.23 kernel and do the same tests next time I
reboot just for good measure.
Reply to: