Mailing List Archive: Pre 8 and pre 9 causes crashing kernel with bttv

Pre 8 and pre 9 causes crashing kernel with bttv

Jan 23, 1999, 2:12 PM

Post #1 of 3 (179 views)

Hello all,
I am sending this to both the kernel list and to Alan Cox (although I
don't think it is his problem)
The problem
I have used the 2.1.131 and higher till pre 9.
The problems start since pre 8 (pre 9 and earlier worked fine).
I have got a hauppauge and I use the bttv drivers. I insert all the
modules with the script delivered with the bttv driver So this is what
happens.
the first modules load fine (i2c, tuner, video...) then the module bttv
needs to be loaded. This goes correct. Then the sound module msp3400 has
to be loaded and then the machine completly hangs (with both pre8 and
pre9). Sometimes the magic keys work (not always).
This also happens with the video4linux drivers in the kernel. When
starting xawtv, kerneld loads video, i2c and bttv. To get the tuner
working I load tuner.
Next thing I try to load msp3400 and the whole thing hangs again.
(again, this only happens with pre 8 and pre 9)
BTW: You could also load msp3400 before bttv (instead of bttv and then
msp3400). Then msp3400 get's loaded and than when you try to load bttv
the pc completly hangs.
If you need more info I will give it to you. I find this sad to happen
with the pre-final ... :-(
machinge info:
AMD K6 - 200 (kernel reports stepping bug) , running normal speed
64 MB 100 mhz SDRAM
Hauppauge winTV/RADIO (stereo) card.
UltraSound PnP (using alsadrivers)
Matrox G200 (works perfect to boot into graphics with the nice pinguin)
NCR SCSI card.
Winbond NE2000 PCI card
56K e-tech modem...
I am not subscribed to the kernel list. So any questions should be send
to me (if you have them) jeroen.asselman@pemail.net
Bye...
--
+--
|Greetings, Jeroen Asselman
+--- -- -- -- --- --- ---
|IC UIN: 4331855
|E-Mail: Jeroen.Asselman@pemail.net
|URL : etv.hshaarlem.nl/~jeroena
|URL PCI CARD: etv.hshaarlem.nl/~jeroena/nightengale
|Languages: Dutch (native) / English[A
+-=-Have-a-nice-linux-=--- -- - - -
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: User vs. Kernel (was: To be smug, or not to be smug, that is , the question) [ In reply to ]

rth at twiddle

Jan 23, 1999, 2:30 PM

Post #2 of 3 (180 views)

Permalink

On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:03:12PM -0500, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> For 28456 calls, your apps had to test for a condition that
> did not happen.
Uh, no. That's all done out of line in do_signal.
The application never ever sees a syscall restart.
> It was handled in libc 5...
No it wasn't.
r~
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: User vs. Kernel (was: To be smug, or not to be smug, that is , the question) [ In reply to ]

mingo at chiara

Jan 23, 1999, 3:18 PM

Post #3 of 3 (179 views)

Permalink

On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> >>>> * Lack of generalized message passing
> >>>
> >>> (RT-signals in Linux, a feature of Linux 2.2)
> >>
> >> Could user acahalan send 42 bytes to user mmuscovi?
> >
> > sure, 'mail mmuscovi < ./42bytefile'. What are you trying to
> > achieve and why?
>
> The original poster said "generalized message passing" and you
> responded with something that can pass 4 or 8 bytes between
> processes with the same UID. That isn't very general.
and my question is/was 'what do you need it for, exactly (ie. what
application)'.
> >>> (i guess you missed include/linux/capability.h, a feature of 2.2.
> >>> Not completely finished, but the main mechanizm is in there.)
> >>
> >> I believe he means "true" capability support. In any case,
> >> Linux can't revoke normal user capabilities.
> >
> > what do you mean by 'true'.
>
> True capability systems are token-based. They work very much like
> file descriptor security. Access can be passed from process to
> process, but is not automatically shared by all processes with the
> same UID. [...]
this is what Linux capabilities do too, if you care to take a look at the
code.
> We've often seen requests to deny users the ability to run a network
> server, and sometimes seen requests to deny users the ability to run a
> network client. [...]
this is perfectly possible with Linux capabilities, it just hasnt been
extended to above-port-1024 yet.
> [...] I know I'd want to block SysV shared memory use if I
> were running a server with crummy users.
ulimit ...
> > take a look at async networking IO, fcntl(SETSIG), etc, implemented by
> > Stephen Tweedie recently. (it's in 2.2)
>
> Excellent - but only for network IO?
you are free to implement the rest.
-- mingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/