My installation of Ubuntu is having trouble with my kernel build
because I disabled support for sysctl:
warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
warning: process `evms_activate' used the removed sysctl system call
warning: process `alsactl' used the removed sysctl system call
I am curious whether the use of sysctl indicates a problem in these
processes. What is the benefit of offering disabling sysctl support?
Thanks,
Miles
On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 15:41 -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> My installation of Ubuntu is having trouble with my kernel build
> because I disabled support for sysctl:
>
> warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `evms_activate' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `alsactl' used the removed sysctl system call
>
> I am curious whether the use of sysctl indicates a problem in these
> processes. What is the benefit of offering disabling sysctl support?
To make the kernel smaller for people who don't need sysctl.
Apparently, you need it.
Lee
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:41:27PM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> My installation of Ubuntu is having trouble with my kernel build
> because I disabled support for sysctl:
>
> warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `evms_activate' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `alsactl' used the removed sysctl system call
>
> I am curious whether the use of sysctl indicates a problem in these
> processes. What is the benefit of offering disabling sysctl support?
>
You may want to have a look at the '2.6.18-rc1-mm2: process `showconsole'
used the removed sysctl system call' thread in the archives.
Regards,
Frederik
> Thanks,
> Miles
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:45:01PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 15:41 -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> > My installation of Ubuntu is having trouble with my kernel build
> > because I disabled support for sysctl:
> >
> > warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
> > warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> > warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> > warning: process `evms_activate' used the removed sysctl system call
> > warning: process `alsactl' used the removed sysctl system call
> >
> > I am curious whether the use of sysctl indicates a problem in these
> > processes. What is the benefit of offering disabling sysctl support?
>
> To make the kernel smaller for people who don't need sysctl.
> Apparently, you need it.
afaik, they are being fixed (in debian at least):
http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2006/08/msg00163.html
--
mattia
:wq!
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 16:46 +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:45:01PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 15:41 -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> > > My installation of Ubuntu is having trouble with my kernel build
> > > because I disabled support for sysctl:
> > >
> > > warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
> > > warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> > > warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
> > > warning: process `evms_activate' used the removed sysctl system call
> > > warning: process `alsactl' used the removed sysctl system call
> > >
> > > I am curious whether the use of sysctl indicates a problem in these
> > > processes. What is the benefit of offering disabling sysctl support?
> >
> > To make the kernel smaller for people who don't need sysctl.
> > Apparently, you need it.
>
> afaik, they are being fixed (in debian at least):
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2006/08/msg00163.html
>
"fixed"? Why is sysctl being removed in the middle of a stable kernel
series?!? I thought the new golden rule was "don't break userspace"?
Lee
Ar Gwe, 2006-08-18 am 12:23 -0400, ysgrifennodd Lee Revell:
> "fixed"? Why is sysctl being removed in the middle of a stable kernel
> series?!? I thought the new golden rule was "don't break userspace"?
Its being made optional like a lot of other things. It does probably
belong under CONFIG_EMBEDDED to turn it off tho
Alan
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> "fixed"? Why is sysctl being removed in the middle of a stable kernel
> series?!?
IMHO the stable series is 2.6.x.y nowadays. 2.6.z (without a fourth
number) is more or less what used to be 2.<odd> previously.
> I thought the new golden rule was "don't break userspace"?
AFAIK nothing is broken, but the messages are annoying. Especially since
99.9% of the time they're caused not by the applications but by glibc.
So the message should be heavily rate limited at least, if that's not
already done.
Gabor
--
---------------------------------------------------------
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:30:37AM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > "fixed"? Why is sysctl being removed in the middle of a stable kernel
> > series?!?
>
> IMHO the stable series is 2.6.x.y nowadays. 2.6.z (without a fourth
> number) is more or less what used to be 2.<odd> previously.
Not to mention we're dealing with a -mm kernel...
Regards,
Frederik
>
> > I thought the new golden rule was "don't break userspace"?
>
> AFAIK nothing is broken, but the messages are annoying. Especially since
> 99.9% of the time they're caused not by the applications but by glibc.
> So the message should be heavily rate limited at least, if that's not
> already done.
>
> Gabor
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
> Hungarian Academy of Sciences
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 02:40 +0000, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:30:37AM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:23:54PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > > "fixed"? Why is sysctl being removed in the middle of a stable kernel
> > > series?!?
> >
> > IMHO the stable series is 2.6.x.y nowadays. 2.6.z (without a fourth
> > number) is more or less what used to be 2.<odd> previously.
> Not to mention we're dealing with a -mm kernel...
>
Ah, OK - the debian-glibc thread the OP referred to began:
"Starting with 2.6.18, the official kernels do not have the sysctl
syscall anymore (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/15/54) or rather it has
been replaced by a dummy syscall that always fail and print a message
in the log, and thus the sysctl() function will not work anymore."
However the referenced link is about an -mm kernel.
Sorry for the noise.
Lee