From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755263Ab2HNMyo (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:54:44 -0400 Received: from 209.248.170.90.nw.nuvox.net ([209.248.170.90]:47891 "EHLO GVL-MAIL.koe-americas.local" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753342Ab2HNMyn (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:54:43 -0400 From: David Cullen To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Michal Marek , "linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Fix "/usr/bin/xargs: rm: Argument list too long" during make distclean Thread-Topic: [PATCH RFC] Fix "/usr/bin/xargs: rm: Argument list too long" during make distclean Thread-Index: AQHNeYtJ0vuHTHXr8kOIY+yAGwirYZdYdyAAgAAFDACAAAF2AIABCkQA Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:54:41 +0000 Message-ID: <502A4A90.3070901@koe-americas.com> References: <502957D5.1070800@koe-americas.com> <502965BE.3070406@zytor.com> <502969FA.6010907@koe-americas.com> <50296B34.8090502@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <50296B34.8090502@zytor.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 x-originating-ip: [10.1.5.27] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <9C236C0ACF09F4498F9343BCA50EB71A@koe-americas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id q7ECsoKu015548 On 8/13/2012 5:01 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/13/2012 01:56 PM, David Cullen wrote: >>> >>> That sounds like a bug in xargs... >>> >> >> In my specific case, qemu-arm-static calls xargs (In fact, in my >> cross chroot, qemu-arm-static is used to run every user mode process). >> >> Do you mean that qemu-arm-static is exposing a latent defect in xargs? >> >> Does qemu-arm-static steal some of the command line space that would >> normally be available for xargs? If so, how would xargs figure out >> this was happening and handle the problem? >> > > I have no idea. Perhaps strace can help you see what is happening, I > don't know. More likely it is qemu-arm-static that is broken and it is > trying to enforce the old 128K limit that we used to have before 2.6.23. > This could cause a mismatch between what sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) returns > and what the actual limit is. > > Anyway, even more so the reason to reject this patch. I submitted a bug report on xargs: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?37093 I also submitted a bug report on QEMU: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1036645 {.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I