On 8/13/2012 5:01 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 01:56 PM, David Cullen wrote:
>>>
>>> That sounds like a bug in xargs...
>>>
>>
>> In my specific case, qemu-arm-static calls xargs (In fact, in my
>> cross chroot, qemu-arm-static is used to run every user mode process).
>>
>> Do you mean that qemu-arm-static is exposing a latent defect in xargs?
>>
>> Does qemu-arm-static steal some of the command line space that would
>> normally be available for xargs? If so, how would xargs figure out
>> this was happening and handle the problem?
>>
>
> I have no idea. Perhaps strace can help you see what is happening, I
> don't know. More likely it is qemu-arm-static that is broken and it is
> trying to enforce the old 128K limit that we used to have before 2.6.23.
> This could cause a mismatch between what sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) returns
> and what the actual limit is.
>
> Anyway, even more so the reason to reject this patch.
I submitted a bug report on xargs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?37093
I also submitted a bug report on QEMU:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1036645
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��F���{ay� ʇڙ���f���h������_�(�階�ݢj"��������G����?���&��
