122663-06 may be bad - Solaris

This is a discussion on 122663-06 may be bad - Solaris ; I didn't install in single-user, so the tech doesn't want to escalate it, and I'm getting ready for vacation so I don't have time to deal with it right now. But, after installing 122663-06, I couldn't boot any zones and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 122663-06 may be bad

  1. 122663-06 may be bad

    I didn't install in single-user, so the tech doesn't want to escalate
    it, and I'm getting ready for vacation so I don't have time to deal
    with it right now.

    But, after installing 122663-06, I couldn't boot any zones and I
    couldn't create zones.

    [root@cookies:~]# zoneadm -z test boot
    zoneadm: zone 'test': Failed to initialize privileges: No such file or directory
    zoneadm: zone 'test': call to zoneadmd failed
    [root@cookies:~]# zonecfg -z test2
    test2: No such zone configured
    Use 'create' to begin configuring a new zone.
    zonecfg:test2> create
    zonecfg:test2> set zonepath=/zone/test2
    zonecfg:test2> commit
    ld.so.1: zonecfg: fatal: relocation error: file /usr/sbin/zonecfg: symbol zonecfg_add_index: referenced symbol not found
    zsh: killed zonecfg -z test2
    [root@cookies:~]#

    I also couldn't backout the patch with patchrm, since it tries to boot
    non-running zones, which fails. I copied the files from -05 from
    another system and all was well. Case 65195772 if anyone from Sun
    cares to look.

    The sparc version (122662) is only at -02 for some reason.

    -frank

  2. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    Frank Cusack writes:
    > I also couldn't backout the patch with patchrm, since it tries to boot
    > non-running zones, which fails. I copied the files from -05 from
    > another system and all was well. Case 65195772 if anyone from Sun
    > cares to look.


    I don't have access to "case" numbers (that's a support thing), but
    what you're lacking here is patch 122659-06, which hasn't been
    released.

    I agree with you. I don't think that patch was constructed correctly.
    I don't see how an old zonecfg could be used with a new libzonecfg, or
    vice-versa. It's not a one-way dependency.

    The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
    into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.

    --
    James Carlson, KISS Network
    Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
    MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

  3. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    James Carlson writes:
    > The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
    > into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.


    After a bit of searching, I found it. This is CR 6483014. I'll
    update that bug.

    --
    James Carlson, KISS Network
    Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
    MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

  4. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    In alt.solaris.x86 James Carlson wrote:
    > The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
    > into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.


    While we're at it - this seems unusual, too:

    Patch IR CR RSB Age Synopsis
    ------ -- - -- --- --- ------------------------------------------
    120901 -- < 03 R-- 289 SunOS 5.10_x86: libzonecfg patch
    122663 -- < 06 --- 4 SunOS 5.10_x86: libzonecfg patch

    Two patches for libzonecfg, both replacing /usr/lib/libzonecfg.so.1
    and /usr/lib/amd64/libzonecfg.so.1. While it's no real problem, as
    122663 requires 120901, it's confusing. Maybe the extra files from
    120901 should go into 122663, too.

    mp.
    --
    Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna
    | http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/
    Patch Check Advanced | Analyze, download and install patches for Sun Solaris

  5. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    Martin Paul writes:

    > In alt.solaris.x86 James Carlson wrote:
    > > The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
    > > into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.

    >
    > While we're at it - this seems unusual, too:
    >
    > Patch IR CR RSB Age Synopsis
    > ------ -- - -- --- --- ------------------------------------------
    > 120901 -- < 03 R-- 289 SunOS 5.10_x86: libzonecfg patch
    > 122663 -- < 06 --- 4 SunOS 5.10_x86: libzonecfg patch
    >
    > Two patches for libzonecfg, both replacing /usr/lib/libzonecfg.so.1
    > and /usr/lib/amd64/libzonecfg.so.1. While it's no real problem, as
    > 122663 requires 120901, it's confusing. Maybe the extra files from
    > 120901 should go into 122663, too.


    That's a different issue and has to do with the way some ZFS-related
    changes were done. As I understand it, both are valid and need to
    remain separate.

    The problem in the original posting isn't just an "unusual" synopsis;
    it's an incorrect patch.

    --
    James Carlson, KISS Network
    Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
    MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

  6. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    In James Carlson writes:

    >James Carlson writes:
    >> The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
    >> into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.


    >After a bit of searching, I found it. This is CR 6483014. I'll
    >update that bug.


    Do SPARC patches have the same problem? I see that 122658-03 has just
    appeared. 122662-02 seems to be current. Our Oracle people would be
    very unhappy of their zones wouldn't boot.

    --
    -Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-

  7. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:05:27 +0000 (UTC) Gary Mills wrote:
    > Do SPARC patches have the same problem? I see that 122658-03 has just
    > appeared. 122662-02 seems to be current. Our Oracle people would be
    > very unhappy of their zones wouldn't boot.


    SPARC (122662-02) is working fine for me.

    -frank

  8. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    In alt.solaris.x86 James Carlson wrote:
    > Martin Paul writes:
    >> Two patches for libzonecfg, both replacing /usr/lib/libzonecfg.so.1
    >> and /usr/lib/amd64/libzonecfg.so.1. While it's no real problem, as
    >> 122663 requires 120901, it's confusing. Maybe the extra files from
    >> 120901 should go into 122663, too.

    >
    > That's a different issue and has to do with the way some ZFS-related
    > changes were done. As I understand it, both are valid and need to
    > remain separate.


    It's just that past experience has shown that two patches which
    install the same files always caused problems sooner or later.
    Usually the older patch was published in a newer revision, and
    did not include the fixes from the other patch. Look up 113240
    and 114497 (both "CDE 1.5: dtsession patch") for a past, real-
    world example.

    > The problem in the original posting isn't just an "unusual" synopsis;
    > it's an incorrect patch.


    I know. Just prefer to stop problems from appearing later, than
    having to fix them when they manifest.

    mp.
    --
    Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna
    | http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/
    Patch Check Advanced | Analyze, download and install patches for Sun Solaris

  9. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    Gary Mills writes:

    > In James Carlson writes:
    >
    > >James Carlson writes:
    > >> The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
    > >> into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.

    >
    > >After a bit of searching, I found it. This is CR 6483014. I'll
    > >update that bug.

    >
    > Do SPARC patches have the same problem? I see that 122658-03 has just
    > appeared. 122662-02 seems to be current. Our Oracle people would be
    > very unhappy of their zones wouldn't boot.


    The corresponding SPARC patches haven't made it out yet.

    --
    James Carlson, KISS Network
    Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
    MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

  10. Re: 122663-06 may be bad

    Is there a work-around for this - or is the alternative to wait until a
    new patch comes out?

    Thanks,
    Ey­un E. Jacobsen

    On Oct 18, 10:04 pm, Frank Cusack wrote:
    > I didn't install in single-user, so the tech doesn't want to escalate
    > it, and I'm getting ready for vacation so I don't have time to deal
    > with it right now.
    >
    > But, after installing 122663-06, I couldn't boot any zones and I
    > couldn't create zones.
    >
    > [root@cookies:~]# zoneadm -z test boot
    > zoneadm:zone'test':Failedtoinitializeprivileges: No such file or directory
    > zoneadm:zone'test': call to zoneadmdfailed
    > [root@cookies:~]# zonecfg -z test2
    > test2: No suchzoneconfigured
    > Use 'create' to begin configuring a newzone.
    > zonecfg:test2> create
    > zonecfg:test2> set zonepath=/zone/test2
    > zonecfg:test2> commit
    > ld.so.1: zonecfg: fatal: relocation error: file /usr/sbin/zonecfg: symbolzonecfg_add_index: referenced symbol not found
    > zsh: killed zonecfg -z test2
    > [root@cookies:~]#
    >
    > I also couldn't backout the patch with patchrm, since it tries to boot
    > non-running zones, which fails. I copied the files from -05 from
    > another system and all was well. Case 65195772 if anyone from Sun
    > cares to look.
    >
    > The sparc version (122662) is only at -02 for some reason.
    >
    > -frank



+ Reply to Thread