On 4/3/06, John Reiser <jreiser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It's possible that changes introduced with kernel 2080_FC5 to deal > with bugzilla #162797 may be interacting with the application. > [What is the address of the attempted bad access, and what is > the memory map there?] > > First, try the application under the values 1, 3, 0, 11, and 9 of > /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield, when running 2080_FC5. That is: > # echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield ## note: as root > $ run-the-application ## note: as ordinary user > then > # echo 3 > /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield > $ run-the-application > then use 0, 11, and 9. [The default behavior of kernel 2054_FC5 > is very close to the behavior of 2080_FC5 when exec-shield is 1.] > > If the problem persists under both 11 and 9, but not under > any of 1, 3, and 0, then there may be a kernel bug, or the application > might be making an assumption about virtual address space that is > no longer true in kernel 2080_FC5. OK. The application works under 0, 1 and 9, but not under 3 or 11. Is there documentation for what these new modes do? Will do the strace for 3 and 11 and report it to Bugzilla. -- Michel Salim http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~msalim http://the-dubois-papers.blogspot.com/ -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list