[Debian] [vorlon@debian.org: Bug#400675: kernel-patch-openvz:
patch still not applying cleanly]
Ola Lundqvist
opal at debian.org
Sun Jan 28 14:45:07 EST 2007
Hi again
I have now updated this code myself. It was not that hard and I think
I got everything correct. Two of them fs/compat.c and
net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c was so simple as that it had
been merged in by this kernel change so it was just to remove that
part from the patch. The others required some more checking.
Now I have made a patch with minimal changes to the previous
patch in order to ease the check for the release team.
I'll now make a test build in order to see that it compiles and
then test that on the testbed that I have prepared.
Regards,
// Ola
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 07:10:28PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi
>
> Have tested it now and it do not apply cleanly:
>
> patching file fs/compat.c
> Hunk #7 FAILED at 894.
> 1 out of 8 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/compat.c.rej
> patching file mm/fremap.c
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 82.
> 1 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/fremap.c.rej
> patching file mm/memory.c
> patching file mm/memory.c
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 60 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 107 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 324 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 423 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 434 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #7 succeeded at 489 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #8 succeeded at 497 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #9 succeeded at 547 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #10 succeeded at 587 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #11 succeeded at 611 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #12 succeeded at 647 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #13 succeeded at 674 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #14 succeeded at 728 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #15 succeeded at 743 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #16 succeeded at 1153 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #17 succeeded at 1170 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #18 succeeded at 1179 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #19 succeeded at 1219 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #20 succeeded at 1252 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #21 succeeded at 1276 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #22 succeeded at 1311 (offset -1 lines).
> Hunk #23 FAILED at 1521.
> Hunk #24 succeeded at 1570 (offset -11 lines).
> Hunk #25 succeeded at 1585 (offset -11 lines).
> Hunk #26 succeeded at 1608 (offset -11 lines).
> Hunk #27 succeeded at 1633 (offset -11 lines).
> Hunk #28 succeeded at 1643 with fuzz 1 (offset -11 lines).
> Hunk #29 succeeded at 1648 with fuzz 1 (offset -15 lines).
> Hunk #30 succeeded at 2008 (offset -15 lines).
> Hunk #31 succeeded at 2065 (offset -15 lines).
> Hunk #32 succeeded at 2076 (offset -15 lines).
> Hunk #33 succeeded at 2096 (offset -15 lines).
> Hunk #34 succeeded at 2122 (offset -15 lines).
> Hunk #35 succeeded at 2146 (offset -15 lines).
> Hunk #36 succeeded at 2163 (offset -15 lines).
> Hunk #37 FAILED at 2208.
> Hunk #38 succeeded at 2217 (offset -16 lines).
> Hunk #39 succeeded at 2232 (offset -16 lines).
> Hunk #40 succeeded at 2306 with fuzz 2 (offset -20 lines).
> Hunk #41 FAILED at 2320.
> Hunk #42 succeeded at 2324 (offset -24 lines).
> Hunk #43 succeeded at 2449 (offset -24 lines).
> Hunk #44 succeeded at 2520 (offset -24 lines).
> Hunk #45 succeeded at 2556 (offset -24 lines).
> Hunk #46 succeeded at 2577 (offset -24 lines).
> 3 out of 46 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/memory.c.rej
> patching file mm/mprotect.c
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 27 with fuzz 2.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 140.
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 157 (offset -10 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 208 with fuzz 1 (offset -9 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 319 (offset -9 lines).
> 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/mprotect.c.rej
> patching file net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c
> Hunk #21 succeeded at 2011 with fuzz 2 (offset 2 lines).
> Hunk #22 FAILED at 2029.
> Hunk #23 succeeded at 2039 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #24 succeeded at 2064 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #25 succeeded at 2110 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #26 succeeded at 2136 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #27 succeeded at 2151 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #28 succeeded at 2262 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #29 succeeded at 2304 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #30 succeeded at 2317 (offset 1 line).
> 1 out of 30 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c.rej
>
> The source is available at:
> /usr/src at deb-build-amd64.openvz.org
>
> It is also available as a deb file at http://ftp.fi.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-source-2.6.18_2.6.18.dfsg.1-9_all.deb
>
> Regards,
>
> // Ola
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:57:10PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > New versions of the kernel will be made as it has serious bugs. I'll check
> > if it applies during the weekend.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > // Ola
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> -----
> >
> > Envelope-to: ola at opalsys.net
> > Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:46:27 +0100
> > Subject: Bug#400675: kernel-patch-openvz: patch still not applying cleanly
> > Reply-To: Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org>, 400675 at bugs.debian.org
> > Resent-From: Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org>
> > Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist at lists.debian.org
> > Resent-CC: Ola Lundqvist <opal at debian.org>
> > Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:48:14 +0000
> > Resent-Message-ID: <handler.400675.B400675.11698045303564 at bugs.debian.org>
> > X-Debian-PR-Message: report 400675
> > X-Debian-PR-Package: kernel-patch-openvz
> > X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
> > X-Debian-PR-Source: kernel-patch-openvz
> > From: Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org>
> > To: Ola Lundqvist <ola at opalsys.net>, Kir Kolyshkin <kir at openvz.org>,
> > 400675 at bugs.debian.org
> > Cc: opal at debian.org, dev at openvz.org, dim at openvz.org, vtaras at openvz.org
> > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
> > (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
> > X-Spam-Level:
> > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
> > autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
> > Resent-Sender: Debian BTS <debbugs at bugs.debian.org>
> > Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:48:15 -0800
> > X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
> > X-Spamcheck-provider: Checked for spam by opalsys.net, postmaster at opalsys.net
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:35:04AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:33:33AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 08:45:21AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > > > Do you know if there will be more updates to the kernel after -8?
> >
> > > > Yes, there will.
> >
> > > Ok, good to know. Upsream and I are subscribed to the package
> > > tracking system for such uploads so we should be informed quite quickly.
> >
> > You've probably seen by now that -9 has been uploaded. There will
> > definitely be a -10 as well for etch, there are still outstanding RC bugs
> > that need fixing; but -9 needs to be the final ABI and therefore shouldn't
> > (I hope) be including any more large upstream merges.
> >
> > > > > If so I need to be prepared as that will probably break this patch.
> >
> > > > Why is this patch so fragile? If it breaks that easily, it hardly seems
> > > > releasable -- how do we protect against it being broken by security updates?
> >
> > > the patch is very big (about 700k) and applies to huge amount of places in the
> > > kernel. From 2.6.19 somekind of hook functionality is in place as
> > > far as I understand, but for 2.6.18 it is not possible to use that. I do not
> > > know if it solves all the problems though.
> >
> > > The problem have arized everytime the kernel team change from
> > > 2.6.18 to 2.6.18.3 and then to 2.6.18.6. I do not think a problem have
> > > arized when just doing minor updates, but I do not know for sure and it
> > > depends on the update.
> >
> > Well, the lack of surety is what has me concerned.
> >
> > > But security updates may need to be coordinated.
> >
> > Is the security team aware that this is the case?
> >
> > > I assume that same problem can arize for vserver and xen patch, but those
> > > patches are a part of the kernel source nowdays.
> >
> > Yes, which means any problems with those patches are detected at build time
> > for the linux-2.6 package -- clearly not the case for openvz right now.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 02:10:02PM +0300, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
> > > One failed hunk in net/ipv6/udp.c -- looks like the patch from 2.6.18.5
> > > is not applied to linux-source-2.6.18-7:
> > > * http://tinyurl.com/2n9554
> >
> > > Six failed hunks in net/ipv4/ip_tables.c -- same, looks like a few
> > > patches from 2.6.18.y-stable are not applied to linux-source-2.6.18-7. I
> > > see at least the following ones:
> > > * http://tinyurl.com/2l5sae
> > > * http://tinyurl.com/38bgxa
> > > * http://tinyurl.com/2wx9jz
> >
> > > I have just checked that after applying four patches linked above,
> > > kernel-patch-openvz-028test007.1 applies cleanly on top of
> > > linux-source-2.6.18-2.6.18-7.
> >
> > > Thus the question: are you tracking the -stable tree, and how closely do
> > > you follow it?
> >
> > This bug was re-reported because the current version of the openvz patch
> > package doesn't apply against the /previous/ version of the linux-2.6
> > package. The common case here has been that the openvz patch hasn't been
> > updated to apply to the current version of the linux-2.6 package.
> >
> > --
> > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
> > vorlon at debian.org http://www.debian.org/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
> > --
> > --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
> > / opal at debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
> > | ola at opalsys.net 654 65 KARLSTAD |
> > | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
> > | http://opalsys.net/ UIN/icq: 4912500 |
> > \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Debian mailing list
> > Debian at openvz.org
> > https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/debian
> >
>
> --
> --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
> / opal at debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
> | ola at opalsys.net 654 65 KARLSTAD |
> | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
> | http://opalsys.net/ UIN/icq: 4912500 |
> \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Debian mailing list
> Debian at openvz.org
> https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/debian
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal at debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| ola at opalsys.net 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://opalsys.net/ UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Debian
mailing list