Re: Compile failure in CentOS 3.9 - DNS

This is a discussion on Re: Compile failure in CentOS 3.9 - DNS ; At Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:20:32 -0700 (PDT), grpprod wrote: > I am trying to compile latest versions under CentOS 3.9. Never had > compilation issues in the past. But not anymore: > > > Jul 30 00:06:41 srv named[17694]: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: Compile failure in CentOS 3.9

  1. Re: Compile failure in CentOS 3.9

    At Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:20:32 -0700 (PDT),
    grpprod wrote:

    > I am trying to compile latest versions under CentOS 3.9. Never had
    > compilation issues in the past. But not anymore:
    >
    > > Jul 30 00:06:41 srv named[17694]: starting BIND 9.5.1b1 -c /usr/local/bind9/etc/named.conf
    > > Jul 30 00:06:41 srv named[17694]: errno2result.c:111: unexpected error:
    > > Jul 30 00:06:41 srv named[17694]: unable to convert errno to isc_result: 38: Function not implemented
    > > Jul 30 00:06:41 srv named[17694]: main.c:504: unexpected error:
    > > Jul 30 00:06:41 srv named[17694]: isc_socketmgr_create() failed: unexpected error
    > > Jul 30 00:06:41 srv named[17694]: create_managers() failed: unexpected error
    > > Jul 30 00:06:41 srv named[17694]: exiting (due to early fatal error)

    >
    > I would appreciate some help.thanks


    This is a known issue. It's most likely because your Linux kernel is
    some 2.4.x, confusing BIND9 autoconf on the availability of epoll.

    The next beta will work around this. In the mean time, if you don't
    have performance problem with the more conservative P1 versions, I'd
    recommend them.

    ---
    JINMEI, Tatuya
    Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.


  2. Re: Compile failure in CentOS 3.9

    > This is a known issue. *It's most likely because your Linux kernel is
    > some 2.4.x, confusing BIND9 autoconf on the availability of epoll.
    >
    > The next beta will work around this. *In the mean time, if you don't
    > have performance problem with the more conservative P1 versions, I'd
    > recommend them.


    Thanks,
    the thing is, the reason for the upgrade at the moment is the recent
    cache poisoning vulnerability. Can I fix it without upgrading?


  3. Re: Compile failure in CentOS 3.9

    At Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:44:56 -0700 (PDT),
    grpprod wrote:

    > > some 2.4.x, confusing BIND9 autoconf on the availability of epoll.
    > >
    > > The next beta will work around this. *In the mean time, if you don't
    > > have performance problem with the more conservative P1 versions, I'd
    > > recommend them.

    >
    > Thanks,
    > the thing is, the reason for the upgrade at the moment is the recent
    > cache poisoning vulnerability. Can I fix it without upgrading?


    What do you mean by 'upgrading'? Switching to a P1 version? Since P1
    is already available and more conservative than beta, I wouldn't call
    it an upgrade. Anyway, if you don't want to switch to a P1, there's
    no other way to work around this except modifying the source code.

    ---
    JINMEI, Tatuya
    Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.


  4. RE: Re: Compile failure in CentOS 3.9

    I think you guys are saying the same thing but talking at cross purposes.

    The P1 is an "upgrade" from what grpprod had originally.

    It is a "downgrade" from the beta version grpprod was trying to compile that started his question.

    Jinmei Tatuya was saying that instead of "upgrading" from what grpprod had originally to the beta version do the upgrade from original version to the "P1" version instead and don't try the beta version at all due to a known issue.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: bind-users-bounce@isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce@isc.org] On Behalf Of JINMEI Tatuya / ????
    Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:22 PM
    To: grpprod@gmail.com
    Cc: comp-protocols-dns-bind@isc.org
    Subject: Re: Compile failure in CentOS 3.9

    At Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:44:56 -0700 (PDT),
    grpprod wrote:

    > > some 2.4.x, confusing BIND9 autoconf on the availability of epoll.
    > >
    > > The next beta will work around this. In the mean time, if you don't
    > > have performance problem with the more conservative P1 versions, I'd
    > > recommend them.

    >
    > Thanks,
    > the thing is, the reason for the upgrade at the moment is the recent
    > cache poisoning vulnerability. Can I fix it without upgrading?


    What do you mean by 'upgrading'? Switching to a P1 version? Since P1
    is already available and more conservative than beta, I wouldn't call
    it an upgrade. Anyway, if you don't want to switch to a P1, there's
    no other way to work around this except modifying the source code.

    ---
    JINMEI, Tatuya
    Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
    ----------------------------------
    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
    ----------------------------------


+ Reply to Thread