From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 30 09:22:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3421416A4BF; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.yumyumyum.org (dsl092-171-091.wdc2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.171.91]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD4E43FE9; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:22:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from culverk@yumyumyum.org) Received: by mailhub.yumyumyum.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A13797D0; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.yumyumyum.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7367CF; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:22:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Culver To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030830121939.E28935@alpha.yumyumyum.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Matthias Andree cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2 ports broken after gcc import X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:22:20 -0000 > I think I missed the message that this is a response to, but here's an > answer to the question: UFS_ACL controls only the introduction of ACL > code into UFS1 and UFS2 file systems, and enables conditional use of > ACLs code if the ACLs flag is set on a file system. If the ACLs flag is > not set on a file system, the UFS1/UFS2 code is intended to run along > its original permissions-based code path. Devfs isn't based on UFS, and > so it should be unaffected by the UFS_ACL flag. If there's a definite > causal relationship between UFS_ACL and the nmap failure, I can't help > but wonder if it's a result of a timing, code layout, or memory > allocation change of some sort. I wouldn't rule out a bug in the ACL > code, but it seems somewhat unlikely as, without the ACLs flag set, the > code path in the UFS code should be minimally changed... > > The best path to track this down is to try to figure out for sure which > system call is failing, compare expected vs. wire network transmissions, > and see if we can reproduce this in a simpler test program. > > We've recently made some changes in how the permissions of new objects > are calculated using ACLs; they were made somewhat before the gcc > changes, I believe, but it might also be interesting to see test cases > from before both changes, in between the changes, and after both, to > confirm that it was definitely the gcc change that kicked off the > problem, rather than the UFS change. Finally, I'd like to know what, if > any, optimization flags you're using for the kernel compile... > Well, don't worry too much, I went back and checked the kernel config I used for the kernel that was having problems, and it did indeed have IPFILTER compiled in, BUT I had no rules loading. Both of the rules files were empty. (That's basically what I said in my previous message). I just took me the better part of a night to sort out what I had on that box and remember what I did. Anyway, like I said, I won't be back on that box until Tuesday so I'll have to let you know which knob I turned then... although if it WAS the firewall that's really wierd since I had no rules loaded, and my other box that never had the problem DID have rules loaded. Ken