Ben NanoNote next release progress

Alan Post alanpost at sunflowerriver.org
Mon Aug 15 15:42:32 EDT 2011


On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:35:38PM +0400, cenobyte at dragoncrypt.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:49:33 +0200, David Kuehling wrote:
> >Hi Xiangfu,
> >
> >>>>>>"Xiangfu" == Xiangfu Liu <xiangfu at sharism.cc> writes:
> >
> >>but python still get : root at BenNanoNote:~# python Python 2.6.4
> >>(r264:75706, Jul 6 2011, 01:26:36) [GCC 4.5.4 20110526 (prerelease)]
> >>on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more
> >>information.  Segmentation fault
> >
> >>strace python get: close(4) = 0 open("/lib/libgcc_s.so.1", O_RDONLY) 
> >>=
> >>4 fstat(4, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=59676, ...}) = 0 close(4) 
> >>=
> >>0 --- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) @ 0 (0) --- +++ killed by SIGSEGV
> >>+++ Segmentation fault
> >
> >Hmm, this crashes so early on, I'd say it crashes *within* the 
> >dynamic
> >linker (or did you just truncate the stace log so much?).  It could 
> >also
> >be one of the famous unaligned memory accesses, that use to work on 
> >all
> >modern CPUs, except MIPS.  Looking at the assembler instruction at 
> >the
> >crash location + register dump that would be easy to diagnose 
> >(gdserver
> >anyone?  'info regs', 'disas $pc-8,$pc+8').
> >
> >In kernel 2.6.39 (probably earlier?) Linux now has an unaligned 
> >memory
> >load/store emulation, that works similar to FPU emulation.  And it is
> >slow as hell.  But at least it fixes these problems with misbehaving
> >software.  Maybe we should backport that to our kernel?
> >
> >Would love to help more, but I'm currently a little swamped with 
> >other
> >work.  Still looking forward to getting the next release :)
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >David
> 
> 
> I don't want to sound cynical, but after hearing about all these 
> unfortunate losses, what exactly are we gaining? Is it useful to keep 
> running to keep up with the latest OpenWRT and Linux kernel? Perhaps for 
> security reasons? It just looks to me as an outsider that it is a 
> lose-lose...
> 

I'm on the mailing list for a Linux build system called Aboriginal
Linux, and listening to the primary maintainer describe the
difficulty he encounters doing software integration between (literally)
the smallest set of packages you can have and still have Linux is
mind-boggling.  I certainly don't have the patience to deal with the
problems he encounters.

I think, though, that it is an example of "running to stand still."
Is there another model we can use to coordinate the work of
disparate developers who don't share our purpose?

-Alan
-- 
.i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du




More information about the discussion mailing list


interactive