Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:40:08 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@cup.hp.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: linux emulation problems - path length restrictions in linux_rename Message-ID: <38F203E8.B6F49F98@cup.hp.com> References: <200004081855.LAA11984@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[CC to -emulation as well] Matthew Dillon wrote: > > I just noticed that the reserved area of the user stack that the linux > emulator uses to copy modified paths is only 256 bytes long. > > linux_rename() makes two calls to the path munging code, which means > that the two path arguments are limited in aggregate to 256 bytes, > which is wrong. I've kept a PR open that addresses this indirectly. The real bug is that there's no length checking, which means that if the combined length exceeds 256, bad things happen. > I've also noted another major issue with the linux emulation, and that > is with shell script execution. > > If you are running a linux binary which then fork/exec's a shell script, > the interpreter path at the top of the shell script does not undergo > the path munging code, which breaks the script out of the linux emulation > mode (because it runs the FreeBSD /bin/sh, /bin/csh, etc instead of the > linux version). This is something I have on my TODO list for a while now. > I have a fix for the latter problem. It's fairly trivial. > Without a fix the only way one can reliably run serious linux apps > (like an oracle install for example) under linux emulation is to > chroot into /compat/linux. I would appreciate a review: It basicly looks all right. I haven't tried it yet and also didn't study it closely. I was thinking along the lines of creating more of a "context". This way we can have different behaviour depending on "context". Context being "FreeBSD" or "Linux" or whatever. I hoped to save the addition of "try-this-first" pointers to existing structures. Not that it is bad in general, but I somehow always end up thinking that there's something structurally wrong if you end up doing it like that :-) > (No, this fix alone isn't enough to do an oracle install, it's just too > grungy a beast). In 1999Q2 I did an install of Oracle8i, which failed due to an installer problem, IIRC. I only modified 1 script to overcome the shell execution problem. You are using Blackdown JDK, are you? -- Marcel Moolenaar mail: marcel@cup.hp.com / marcel@FreeBSD.org tel: (408) 447-4222 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38F203E8.B6F49F98>