Subject: Re: apache 2.0 hates older linux kernels:

From: "B. van Ouwerkerk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:15:35 +0200

>uname -a
>Linux darkstar 2.0.35 #4 Mon Dec 14 18:18:57 CST 1998 i586 unknown
>
>and no matter how we configure, apache dies under

SNIP

Just tested it on my old local testbed server.. (not online)

Slackware 7.1.0
Kernel 2.2.16
Apache 2.0.39

Just did the normal configure, make and make install.. now it's running 
Apache 2.. Uhm.. yeah.. so.. since 2.2.16 qualifies for 'older kernel' ;) 
something else must be the reason why it failed on your box..

Bye,

B.
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl)                   www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List                      [email-masked]
Automated List Manager                            [email-masked]

---

From: "R. DuFresne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:33:08 -0400 (EDT)

> Just tested it on my old local testbed server.. (not online)

Umm, yers might be considered older in relative terms, but, I'm using a
slackware 3.6 version on the box I'm trying to work on, so the kernel is a
patched up 2.0.35-6 derivative, older yet then the 7.1 slackware/2.2.16
kernel you are working on there.

Now, thanks to Cliff w/ apache.org we have gotten farther, but are still a
tad short;

> #define HZ 100
>
> in mod_status and it will at least come closer to compiling.

Cliff,

This comes so close, yet remains so far;

the compile looks to complete without any serious errors:

I edit mod_status.c;

/*
#ifdef NEXT
#if (NX_CURRENT_COMPILER_RELEASE == 410)
#ifdef m68k
#define HZ 64
#else
#define HZ 100
#endif
#else
#include <machine/param.h>
#endif
#endif  NEXT */

#define HZ 100

here is my config statement;

configure --disable-threads  --enable-suexec --with-suexec-caller=nobody
--with-suexec-uidmin=500 --enable-module=mod_rewrite
--enable-module=mod_cgi --enable-module-shared=ssl
--with-ssl=/usr/local/ssl --enable-static-rotatelogs
--enable-static-logresolve

this goves me a httpd, httpd -l

Compiled in modules:
  core.c
  mod_access.c
  mod_auth.c
  mod_include.c
  mod_log_config.c
  mod_env.c
  mod_setenvif.c
  prefork.c
  http_core.c
  mod_mime.c
  mod_status.c
  mod_autoindex.c
  mod_asis.c
  mod_suexec.c
  mod_cgi.c
  mod_negotiation.c
  mod_dir.c
  mod_imap.c
  mod_actions.c
  mod_userdir.c
  mod_alias.c
  mod_so.c

<should suexec be compiled into the httpd binary itself?>

It gives me static binaries under support;

-rwx------   1 root     root         5561 Jun 24 18:37 ab*
-rwx------   1 root     root         5591 Jun 24 18:37 checkgid*
-rwx------   1 root     root         5576 Jun 24 18:37 htdbm*
-rwx------   1 root     root         5591 Jun 24 18:36 htdigest*
-rwx------   1 root     root         5591 Jun 24 18:36 htpasswd*
-rwx------   1 root     root        19875 Jun 24 18:37 logresolve*
-rwx------   1 root     root       272278 Jun 24 18:37 rotatelogs*
-rwx------   1 root     root        24613 Jun 24 18:38 suexec*
-rw-------   1 root     root        20595 Jun 24 17:25 apxs

but, under modules/ssl, it looks like it was mostly untouched, no compiled
.so is left there, nothing.  The only files that appear might have been
touched in the process;

-rw-------   1 root     root         3371 Jun 24 17:25 Makefile
...
-rw-------   1 root     root           51 Jun 24 17:25 modules.mk

Though this may well be the reseult of the make clean just prior to the
last config/make...

So, we're almost there, any clues?

Thanks,

Ron DuFresne
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        admin & senior security consultant:  sysinfo.com
                        http://sysinfo.com

"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
                -- Johnny Hart

testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!

---

From: "B. van Ouwerkerk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:16:28 +0200

>kernel you are working on there.

You're right. Dunno what made me see/think 2.2.16 as older then 2.0.35

Sorry.

Bye,

B.