From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/682 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Torne Wuff Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runit running under linux 2.4 with openwall patches Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:58:51 +0000 Message-ID: <1106650731.41f6266bcbe61@www.wolfpuppy.org.uk> References: <20050121193151.5581.qmail@f99cf6af5269a6.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1106650621 5750 80.91.229.6 (25 Jan 2005 10:57:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:57:01 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-921-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Tue Jan 25 11:56:40 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by deer.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CtOND-00030l-00 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:56:39 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 23714 invoked by uid 76); 25 Jan 2005 10:57:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 23709 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2005 10:57:00 -0000 Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 206.165.101.124 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:682 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:682 Quoting Vincent Danen : > > Did you link the runit program statically with the dietlibc? If so, > > you > > could try to compile it the same way as the working /sbin/init, to be > > sure it's not the compiler or libc causing the problem. > > That's a good idea. I did compile it statically with dietlibc. I'll > try without dietlibc and see what happens. I haven't had a chance to > dive back into it yet, but when I get a second I'll rebuild it and see > if that clears it up. If not, I'll recompile the kernel without the > stack protection option enabled, just to make sure that it is what I > think it is. Yes, it's dietlibc. Dietlibc executes code from the stack during system calls, afaict. -- Torne