Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 05:40:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 05:40:11 -0500 Received: from ip68-101-124-193.oc.oc.cox.net ([68.101.124.193]:62337 "EHLO ip68-4-86-174.oc.oc.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 05:40:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 02:48:35 -0800 From: "Barry K. Nathan" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mnalis-umsdos@voyager.hr Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.2.24-rc2/2.4.18/2.4.20 UMSDOS hardlink OOPS Message-ID: <20021231104835.GC2323@ip68-4-86-174.oc.oc.cox.net> References: <20021231080117.GB2323@ip68-4-86-174.oc.oc.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021231080117.GB2323@ip68-4-86-174.oc.oc.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1937 Lines: 40 On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 12:01:17AM -0800, Barry K. Nathan wrote: > 4. Obtain the glibc package from the "L" package set (I think the > filename is "slackware/l/glibc-2.2.5-i386-2.tgz" from your Slackware 8.1 > FTP mirror, your Slackware CD burned from downloaded ISO file, or disc 1 > from your Slackware boxed set), and install it. In my case, this means > inserting disc 1, mounting it on /mnt/cdrom, and "installpkg > /mnt/cdrom/slackware/l/glibc-2.2.5-i386-2.tgz". Or, for more verbosity, replace installpkg /mnt/cdrom/slackware/l/glibc-2.2.5-i386-2.tgz with cd / # important, if done from say /root the oops doesn't happen tar zxvf /mnt/cdrom/slackware/l/glibc-2.2.5-i386-2.tgz (Then you can strace tar if listing each filename isn't enough for you.) > At this point I'm not sure what should be done to fix this. Should > umsdos_solve_hlink (or UMSDOS_link?) be turning the negative dentry into > some kind of error (-ENOENT?) for the calling function? (Hmmm... after I > send this e-mail I think I'll try making a patch to do this and see what > effect it has.) Or is the negative dentry itself a symptom/result of Ok, I've done this (returning -ENOENT from umsdos_solve_link instead of oopsing). I guess I'll post the patches (one for 2.2, one for 2.4) tomorrow after I test them some more. This seems in my limited testing to improve stability and eliminate data loss vs. not having the patch, but I need to test it a bit more first. (In any case, the patch only makes a difference in cases that would have oopsed/segfaulted without it.) IOW, it's an incomplete (if not simply wrong) fix, but it could be better than what's there now, maybe. -Barry K. Nathan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/