linux binary blues

[Bogdan TARU]

	Hi Dan,

 And thanks for your answer... Yes, I have

options         SYSVSEM

 compiled on that machine... As about the third parameter to semget, as
far as I can read in semget(2) the third parameter (flag) is an integer,
not a pointer?

 Any other ideas?

 bogdan


On Wed, 14 May 2003, Dan Nelson wrote:

> In the last episode (May 14), Bogdan TARU said:
> > I have a linux binary that runs well under a jail on a FreeBSD 4.8,
> > but fails to run on a jaili on 4.7 (obviously, both have linux
> > compatibility installed).
> >
> > As far as I know (don't have the sources of this linux binary), it
> > tries to get a lock on a file which is called engine.pid. That failes
> > on 4.7.
> >
> >  The ktraces on the systems look like:
>
> BTW - it didn't matter in this case, but make sure you use the
> linux_kdump program (in the ports tree) when dumping traces from Linux
> executables.  Some syscalls have different numbers under Linux and
> FreeBSD.
>
> >  Good (jail on 4.8):
> >
> >    582 engine   NAMI  "/home/test/testbot/var/run/engine.pid"
> >    582 engine   RET   open 3
> >    582 engine   CALL  semget(0x3,0x6,0xbfbfe820)
> >    582 engine   RET   semget 0
> >    582 engine   CALL  getpid
> >    582 engine   RET   getpid 582/0x246
> >    582 engine   CALL  select(0x3,0)
> >    582 engine   RET   select 0
> >    582 engine   CALL  write(0x3,0x864c28c,0x4)
> >    582 engine   GIO   fd 3 wrote 4 bytes
> >
> >  Failed (jail on 4.7):
> >
> >  10995 engine   NAMI  "/usr/home/ohsandy/sandy/var/run/engine.pid"
> >  10995 engine   RET   open 3
> >  10995 engine   CALL  semget(0x3,0x6,0xbfbfe800)
> >  10995 engine   RET   semget -1 errno -22 Unknown error: -22(
>
> Do you have sysv semaphores enabled on this box? Put this in your
> kernel config file and rebuild:
>
> options         SYSVSEM
>
> >  I don't know, though, why the semget(2) has different values for the
> > third argument (0xbfbfe820 != 0xbfbfe800), if the binary is the same and
> > the linux libraries (as far as I can tell) are the same (tried with the
> > 4.7 linux_base package, and as well with the 4.8 linux_base package
> > installed on the 4.7 system).
>
> The third argument is a pointer value, so it's probably going to be
> different every time.
>
> --
> 	Dan Nelson
> 	dnelson at allantgroup.com
>