Can ext2 kernel run ext3 binaries.

A bit of a novel situation here:

the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
has a ext2 kernel.

Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
but: chroot /
give a core-dump.

Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
Is there any way around this ?

Thanks for any info,

== Chris Glur.

fld-at-informatik.uni-bremen.de wrote:
>A bit of a novel situation here:
>
>the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
>so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
>has a ext2 kernel.
>
>Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
>but: chroot /
> give a core-dump.
>
>Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?

No.

>Is there any way around this ?

Hard to say, but it has nothing to do with whether the
files are or are not on a partition mounted as either
ext2 or ext3.

>Thanks for any info,

The "ext2" and "ext3" terms apply to the *filesystem*, not
to executable binaries. The ext3 filesystem is an ext2
filesystem with journaling. The significance is that a
partition which has been formated with an ext3 filesystem
can be mounted as an ext2 filesystem. It will corrupt
the journaling though, and will require repair with fsck
before it can again be mounted as an ext3 filesystem.

Once mounted, *any* file that is on the filesystem is
accessable in *extactly* the same way, no matter how the
filesystem is mounted. ext2/ext3 does not affect how
files are formated.

--
Floyd L. Davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd-at-apaflo.com

fld-at-informatik.uni-bremen.de writes:

> A bit of a novel situation here:
>
> the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
> so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
> has a ext2 kernel.

Your terminology is slightly off. You probably mean a kernel without the
ext3 FS module.

> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
> but: chroot /
> give a core-dump.
>
> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?

No. Provided that the ext3 filesystem was unmounted cleanly, the filesystem
will look just like an ext2 filesystem, to a kernel that does not support
ext3.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGXqwmx9p3GYHlUOIRAkDfAJ9+s+jUm6/IjARvVssD7ayfiCRVAQCdG09f
8rEqRtZFmz/KRnxu+mzPS6I=
=tDna
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

fld-at-informatik.uni-bremen.de wrote:
> A bit of a novel situation here:
>
> the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
> so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
> has a ext2 kernel.
>
> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
> but: chroot /
> give a core-dump.
>
> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?

there is no such thing as an ext2 or an ext3 binary. binaries differ
according to OS and architecture (i.e. CPU-type), not according to
filesystem type.

any reason why binaries core-dump? have you tried running them with strace?

do all binaries give problems, or just a few?

what is the cpu-type of the machine you're trying to run the binaries on?
are the binaries perhaps compiled for a higher cpu?

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers-at-yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

On 2007-05-31, fld-at-informatik.uni-bremen.de wrote:
>
> the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
> so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
> has a ext2 kernel.
>
> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
> but: chroot /
> give a core-dump.
>
> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?

Extremely unlikely. ext2/3 are just filesystems, and have nothing at
all to do with the format of the binaries.

Your question doesn't appear to be on-topic for the Slackware newsgroup.
If it is, feel free to explain the Slackware connection and add the
newsgroup back to the Newsgroups: line.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet-at-wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Joost Kremers wrote:
> fld-at-informatik.uni-bremen.de wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
>> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
>> but: chroot /
>> give a core-dump.
>>
>> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
>
> there is no such thing as an ext2 or an ext3 binary. binaries
> differ according to OS and architecture (i.e. CPU-type), not
> according to filesystem type.
>
> any reason why binaries core-dump? have you tried running them
> with strace? do all binaries give problems, or just a few?
>
> what is the cpu-type of the machine you're trying to run the
> binaries on? are the binaries perhaps compiled for a higher cpu?

Smells like the result of a memory problem. Get ECC memory.

--




cbfalconer at maineline dot net


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In alt.os.linux.slackware, fld-at-informatik.uni-bremen.de wrote:

> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
> but: chroot /
> give a core-dump.
>
> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
> Is there any way around this ?

Whatever you're playing around with here, the choice between ext2 and ext3
should not introduce such incompatibilities, seen from an application level.
In normal use, the lay-out of stored data should not differ, between use of
ext2 and ext3. With ext3, journalling is added. But data may still be
accessed by an ext2 run-time environment - after that, journalling is out of
sync and needs being refreshed, when once more entering with an ext3 system.

Maybe, there is a different source of the problems, you want to solve.

Ewald Pfau writes:

>In alt.os.linux.slackware, fld-at-informatik.uni-bremen.de wrote:

>> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
>> but: chroot /
>> give a core-dump.
>>
>> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
>> Is there any way around this ?

No idea what you are talking about-- ext{2,3} are filesystems. They have
absolutely nothing to do with binaries or whatever. If the system can read
the filesystems, then it can load any binary on the filesystem, and that
binary will be identical to one from the othe filesystem.



>Whatever you're playing around with here, the choice between ext2 and ext3
>should not introduce such incompatibilities, seen from an application level.
>In normal use, the lay-out of stored data should not differ, between use of
>ext2 and ext3. With ext3, journalling is added. But data may still be
>accessed by an ext2 run-time environment - after that, journalling is out of
>sync and needs being refreshed, when once more entering with an ext3 system.

>Maybe, there is a different source of the problems, you want to solve.

>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]
> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

Please don't use MIME on USENET. The vast majority of clients do not
support MIME, and in fact, probably never will. USENET is a
plain-text, non-MIME medium. In fact, take a look at the number of
MIME USENET groups and see how many dedicated MIME users don't use MIME
on USENET.

If you want to use RSA signatures, just embed them in the message as
myself and many others here and elsewhere do. MIME is for e-mail.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZKPFFRvIvfSNceoRAoEKAKDE/bqVGc5YafZ6BwZS7uKDW+p9KQCfRA/d
wlw2mpMRJI7Acf/qOpCstOs=
=32Lp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ writes:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]

Why?

>> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
>> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>
> Please don't use MIME on USENET.

For some reason, some people curiously prefer to unwind the clock back to
the '70s. Those were the days, huh? Everyone spoke and wrote English on
Usenet, and there weren't any furriners, posting messages that contained
funny-looking characters.

> The vast majority of clients do not
> support MIME, and in fact, probably never will.

For every ancient non-MIME client you can name, I'll probably be able to
name three modern clients that fully support MIME. Besides, taking the
current contents of comp.os.linux.misc:

> USENET is a
> plain-text, non-MIME medium.

I'm truly sorry for what I'm about to do, to confuse you with facts:

[root-at-commodore ~]# cd /var/spool/news/articles
[root-at-commodore articles]# cd comp/os/linux/misc
[root-at-commodore misc]# grep -i Mime-Version•| wc -l
651
[root-at-commodore misc]# ls | wc -l
883
[root-at-commodore misc]# bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
scale=6
651/883
..737259

73.7% of messages in this newsfroup are MIME messages.

Tell me again how Usenet is a "non-MIME" medium.

> In fact, take a look at the number of
> MIME USENET groups and see how many dedicated MIME users don't use MIME
> on USENET.

Take a look at the rest of the world, and look at the number of all users,
worldwide, who use MIME to correctly post messages in non-English character
sets.

> If you want to use RSA signatures,

It's not an RSA signature.

> just embed them in the message as
> myself and many others here and elsewhere do.

In other words: pollute everyone's screens, instead of correctly using MIME
for its intended purpose: to allow non-supporting clients to gracefully show
the signed content, unmolested, and shuffle off the unparsable MIME content
aside.

Brilliant strategy, Sherlock. You'd rather have newsreaders, like
Thunderbird, who properly implement MIME to recognize MIME content, and even
if the PGP plugin is not installed they completely hide the signature from
the client's view, so that the user isn't even aware of the presence of
signed content; you'd rather have them fling all the "embedded" binary crap
in the user's face, instead of suppressing unused MIME content, and hide it
from the user's view?

> MIME is for e-mail.

No, it's not. Not for at least a couple of decades. Welcome to the 21st
century.

But don't feel bad. You're not the first person who embarassed himself by
being completely unaware of this ancient slrn MIME-parsing bug, that still
has not been fixed after many years. And you won't be the last.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGZLbbx9p3GYHlUOIRAtNxAJ9peRvbdAwMRSk5bM2PhA dxNhC7vwCggFMJ
QRLBF2g+sN/BQK0M2Wv31Rw=
=8W1i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----