Lonni J Friedman a écrit :
On 10/23/06, François Patte <francois.patte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Lonni J Friedman a écrit :
> On 10/23/06, François Patte <francois.patte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Lonni J Friedman a écrit :
>> > On 10/16/06, Andy Green <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This bug was fixed in NVIDIA's 1.0-9625 driver release (last
month):
>> >> > http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_downloads_rel70betadriver.html
>> >>
>> >> This isn't what the advisory says:
>> >>
>> >> Published: Oct 16, 2006
>> >> Revision: 1.0
>> >> http://www.rapid7.com/advisories/R7-0025.jsp
>> >> ...
>> >> KNOWN FIXED:
>> >> o None
>> >> ...
>> >> As of the publication date, the latest NVIDIA binary driver is
>> still
>> >> vulnerable.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe they discount the version you linked to because it calls
>> itself a
>> >> beta.
>> >
>>
>> Bonjour,
>>
>> I just tried to compile and install 9625 version of nvidia driver
>> (downloaded from nvidia web site).
>>
>> No problem to compile, no problem to install.... but not working:
screen
>> remains black while booting in level 5 or in level 3 then using
startx...
>>
>> does anybody have the same problem?
>
>
> See:
> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=996233&postcount=20
Thank you! It is now working. I removed the eeprom module. What is this
module? I put it in my /etc/rc.local after running sensors-detect but it
seems to be unused by my system... I had alse to disable lm_sensors
services to prevent the loading of this module, so I don't know for what
these services are useful.
eeprom is used for SMBUS. You could have also just applied the patch
instead of disabling eeprom.
Of course! but that's the why of my mail: as I'm not so aware of what is
what among the modules for hardware control, I could see that eeprom
module was not in use on my system and that, on the contrary, i2c*
modules were used by many others (including nvidia...), I have chosen to
disable eeprom rather than apply the patch which disables i2c*.
But I could be wrong!
Thanks for your lights.
--
François Patte
UFR de mathématiques et informatique
Université René Descartes
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
