On 16/07/06, Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
Michal Piotrowski <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:40:36 +0200
>> Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> After installing a 2.6.18-rc1-mm2 kernel without sysctl syscall support
>>> on a standard SuSE 10.0 system, I find the following in my dmesg:
>>>
>>>> [ 36.955720] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>>>> [ 39.656410] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>>>> [ 43.304401] warning: process `showconsole' used the removed sysctl system
> call
>>>> [ 45.717220] warning: process `ls' used the removed sysctl system call
>>>> [ 45.789845] warning: process `touch' used the removed sysctl system call
>>> which at face value seems to contradict the statement in the help text
>>> for the CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL option that "Nothing has been using the
>>> binary sysctl interface for some time time now". (sic)
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the second part of that sentence that "nothing should break"
>>> by disabling it seems to hold true anyway. The system runs fine, and
>>> activating CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL in the kernel doesn't seem to have any
>>> effect apart from changing the word "removed" to "obsolete" in the above
>>> messages.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> date and salsa also use sysctl.
>
> warning: process `date' used the removed sysctl system call
> warning: process `salsa' used the removed sysctl system call
>
>> Eric, that tends to make the whole idea inviable, doesn't it?
>
> How about _very_ long term to remove sysctl (i.e. January 2010)?
That may be reasonable. However please confirm that everything
that you have complaints from is using libpthreads.
ldd /bin/date
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7f22000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x4aab9000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x49ca3000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x49f38000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x49c86000)
ldd /bin/ls
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7f23000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x4aab9000)
libselinux.so.1 => /lib/libselinux.so.1 (0x45a71000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x49ca3000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x49f38000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x49c86000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x49dd8000)
libsepol.so.1 => /lib/libsepol.so.1 (0x41ad5000)
ldd /sbin/salsa
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7fd7000)
libasound.so.2 => /lib/libasound.so.2 (0x4100f000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x49ca3000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x49dde000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x49dd8000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x49f38000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x49c86000)
ldd /bin/touch
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7fa2000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x4aab9000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x49ca3000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x49f38000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x49c86000)
I can confirm this, but I don't have a "showconsole".
As there is one use of libpthreads that is using sysctl
in a very non-serious way.
With libptrheads modified to use uname and not sysctl I am not seeing that
message. I thought I had broken my test setup by forgetting to compile
glibc with --with-tls but I managed but I managed to get things working
again using LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1
Still not the best data point but a very interesting one.
Eric
Regards,
Michal
--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
(http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/wiki/)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
