Lin­ux­u­la­tor in ‑cur­rent ready for test­ing the 2.6.16 emu­la­tion

Today I com­mit­ted two patch­es which fix the last two pan­ics we know about in the 2.6.16 emu­la­tion. Now we need testers. Here’s the text of the mail I did send to current@ a few moments ago:


today I com­mit­ted the last fix­es for the show­stop­per prob­lems (pan­ics) in the lin­ux 2.6.16 emu­la­tion. I intend to switch the default ver­sion to 2.6.16 on i386 “soon” (see below), so please help test­ing it.

More recent lin­ux dis­tri­b­u­tions (e.g. FC5) require a 2.6 ker­nel and don’t work with 2.4.2 any­more. And because FC4 is “abandon-ware” (no secu­ri­ty fix­es from fedo­rale­ga­cy any­more), get­ting 2.6.16 emu­la­tion up an run­ning is very impor­tant.

If you use a lin­ux pro­gram, please add compat.linux.osrelease=2.6.16 to /etc/sysctl.conf (my desk­top is run­ning with 2.6.16 emu­la­tion since some days already). After the next boot (or after run­ning “sysctl compat.linux.osrelease=2.6.16”, please make sure no lin­ux pro­gram is run­ning already) any lin­ux pro­gram will start with a lin­ux ker­nel ver­sion of 2.6.16 instead of 2.4.2. The default lin­ux base port (FC4) will then use dif­fer­ent code paths (e.g. with­in glibc). In case you want to switch back to the 2.4.2 emu­la­tion with­out a reboot, please make sure no lin­ux pro­gram is run­ning any­more.

So far we fixed all known/repeatable prob­lems with acrore­ad, realplay­er, skype and lin­ux fire­fox. If you encounter strange behav­ior with any lin­ux pro­gram, please tell us ( which pro­gram you used, how to repeat the prob­lem, what the prob­lem is, and if it only is vis­i­ble with 2.6.16 or with 2.4.2 too. You should also watch out for mes­sages in the dmesg (unim­ple­ment­ed sys­tem calls or oth­er stuff, this is used to deter­mine the pri­or­i­ty of miss­ing syscalls). Please also have a look at, I intend to doc­u­ment the known prob­lems there. If you find your prob­lem there, please tell us about it if you are will­ing to test fix­es.

We are spe­cial­ly inter­est­ed in reports (good or bad) on SMP sys­tems. Please beat the hell out of the lin­ux­u­la­tor!

On amd64 sys­tems we have not the same func­tion­al­i­ty as on i386, miss­ing are futex­es and TLS. In P4 we already have the futex part cov­ered, but the TLS part is still miss­ing (any­one with a clue about the ker­nel side of TLS on amd64 is wel­come to give a hint or two to jkim@ and rdivacky@). So if you get a mes­sage about miss­ing futex­es or TLS on amd64: we know about it (testers for the futex stuff are wel­come, but first you need to use a pro­gram which uses futex­es and com­plains).

As long as we get prob­lem reports with 2.6.16 I will not switch the default to 2.6.16. If we don’t get a report at all, I will switch the default on i386 to 2.6.16 in two weeks. If we get some prob­lem reports, we will push back the switch a lit­tle bit depend­ing on the sever­i­ty of the prob­lem.


Send to Kin­dle

Some days of men­tor­ing…

In the last days I spend my free time with men­tor­ing Boris and the SoC stu­dents. Boris is maybe ready to fly solo now (and he already got implic­it aproval for sev­er­al things from me), but I will keep an eye on him from time to time for some more weeks.

The lin­ux­o­la­tor SoC project pro­gress­es faster now. We may have sup­port for TLS, TID and futex­es in the com­ming week (this should allow us to run FC4/FC5 with a lin­ux ker­nel ver­sion of 2.6.x, time will tell).

In the sound SoC project, Ryan cre­at­ed an user repos­i­to­ry. He is more com­fort­able with com­mit­ting “micro-changes” to the user branch first to not spam the per­force mail­inglist. I don’t think this mat­ters, but when he feels more com­fort­able this way, I don’t object. This makes it a lit­tle bit hard­er for me to fol­low, but I will nag him more often for a sta­tus report then.

I also MFCed the fix­es for Ora­cle 10, it should work on 6-sta­ble too now.

Send to Kin­dle