Kismet Wireless

Kismet Forums


Posted by:dragorn
Subject:Startup segfault on Sabayon 4
Date:00:19:43 10/07/2009

> Running Sabayon 4 on an HP laptop here (Pavilion 9500, AMD 64) and I built the 2009-05-RC2 from source, installed it suidroot, configured /usr/local/etc/kismet.conf, and it crashed immediately on startup with a sig 11.
> I wiped that install from the system, and loaded the build which Sabayon provides, which is from 2008-05. This one segfaulted too, but in a different place. (Yes, I know that it puts its kismet.conf in a different place.)
> So it doesn't like the assignment of VERSION_TINY into that global varball. This was the same trouble I had with the previous version -- same line, everything, although IIRC, the faulty address was different. Is this gonna turn out to be a library bug?

You're the second person I've heard of running sabayon, and the previous person also had significant errors which were unique to sabayon itself - it seems like they've done "something" to the system libs (I'm guessing libstdc++) which does NOT react well.

The debug info from here and from the previous guy both point to sabayon being completely broken with c++ apps - it's crashing adding constants inside standard c++ strings, and if it makes it past there, it crashes in a variety of other random places which make no sense.

Everything I've seen indicates sabayon is broken - I have no advice, because none of the crashes make any sense, and go away as soon as you run it on another distro.

My bet is they've either defaulted some kernel option which is wrong (one of the memory randomizers or something maybe) which conflicts with their c++ stuff, OR they install a weird version of g++ which is fundamentally broken all on it's own. I know most versions of gcc 4.4 are broken in interesting ways for c++, though usually they fail with internal library errors during linkage.

I don't have any good suggestions other than "don't use sabayon". I hate to tell people what distro to use, but this one seems not right, and is the only one that brings out this behavior.


Reply to this message