Bug 103014 - with kernel 2.4.21-1.1931.2.399 all 32 bit binaries dump core and die
Summary: with kernel 2.4.21-1.1931.2.399 all 32 bit binaries dump core and die
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux Beta
Classification: Retired
Component: kernel   
(Show other bugs)
Version: beta1
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Arjan van de Ven
QA Contact: Brian Brock
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2003-08-25 14:46 UTC by Albert Fluegel
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:57 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-08-25 14:48:46 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Albert Fluegel 2003-08-25 14:46:45 UTC
Description of problem:
upgraded kernel to 2.4.21-1.1931.2.399 on a opteron box.
Afterwards all 32 bit binaries dumped core. with
2.4.21-1.1931.2.389 there was no problem

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
2.4.21-1.1931.2.399

How reproducible:
upgrade to 2.4.21-1.1931.2.399

Steps to Reproduce:
1. run any arbitrary 32 bit binary
2.
3.
    
Actual results:
core dump


Expected results:
program running normally


Additional info:
with 2.4.21-1.1931.2.389 there was no problem
glibc is glibc-2.3.2-74 (64 and 32 Bit versino)

Comment 1 Arjan van de Ven 2003-08-25 14:48:46 UTC
known bug; we fixed this late last week in version 405 and later; will appear in
RHN soon

Comment 2 Albert Fluegel 2003-08-25 15:15:00 UTC
Ok, sorry, the latest thing i get via up2date is 2.4.21-1.1931.2.393,
i was on the wrong system, which has a very similar name, but has
an opteron processor. So can i expect the problem is fixed when 399
is available ?


Comment 3 Rik van Riel 2003-08-25 15:18:20 UTC
This particular bug got fixed in kernel .409.

Comment 4 Arjan van de Ven 2003-08-25 15:19:06 UTC
405 or later, not 399.
393 is ok, 399 is broken, 405 is ok again

Comment 5 Arjan van de Ven 2003-08-25 15:20:17 UTC
eh ignore me; 409 is the one



Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.