From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 2 20:49:58 2004 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 EE17716A4E7 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 20:49:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from chatserv.de (p15119030.pureserver.info [217.160.175.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8DFC43D41 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 20:49:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sascha@schumann.cx) Received: (qmail 30117 invoked by uid 1040); 2 Oct 2004 20:49:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Oct 2004 20:49:53 -0000 Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 22:49:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Sascha Schumann X-X-Sender: sas@localhost To: Kris Kennaway In-Reply-To: <20041002200901.GA53162@xor.obsecurity.org> Message-ID: References: <20041002200901.GA53162@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Conclusion of thread "Deadlocks with recent SMP current"? 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, 02 Oct 2004 20:49:58 -0000 > Yes, this is believed to have been resolved in 5.3. Good to hear. > So, you're running 5.2 on those systems, which was documented as a > development release and not recommended for use on production systems No, *I* am not running FreeBSD 5 anywhere on productive systems. Unfortunaly, the ISP recommended it to this particular owner of two systems where I am doing some voluntary work in my spare time. One of the servers ran 5.1 with an uptime of >200 days. There were no indications that 5.2 contained such vast regressions in comparison to 5.1. Even today, the 5.2.1 errata page does not say anything about SMP issues. > (and indeed contained numerous rough edges and bugs), and you're > scared to update to 5.3 which is going to be designated as the > beginning of the 5.3-STABLE branch (and has had a couple of months of > extensive bugfixing and QA)? I would rather downgrade to 5.1 (because I know it works reliably on this piece of equipment), but unfortunately, somewhere during "make installworld", the install binary starts to segfault. truss shows that the 5.1 /usr/bin/install calls the new fstatfs syscall 397. AFAICT this could only happen when the 5.1 install binary is linked against the 5.2 libc. I suppose installworld does not point LD_LIBRARY_PATH at the newly build libraries under /usr/obj? If not, what is the best way to ensure that binaries are linked against suitable libs during installworld? Thanks - Sascha