Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

Hi, On 09-06-2024 1:56 p.m., rhys wrote: So given that these no longer fit the "old and busted" description, is Debian going to stick with the decision to not support them? Or is Debian going to continue to support this processor, since it is still apparently a viable product, enough that new

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Sun, 09 Jun 2024 20:39:27 -0500, r...@neoquasar.org wrote: >Based on these NEW i686-class systems being available, are people more willing >to spend the time to support them, knowing that the code will be used on >hardware still supported by its manufacturer, still under warranty, still in >p

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

> Or is Debian going to continue to support this processor, since it is still > apparently a viable product, enough that new systems are using it? Considering the plans for i386 I don't think it makes sense to even ask this question? Of course it makes sense to ask. The plans are based on a fau

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 06:56:00AM -0500, rhys wrote: > The question right now is: Is this processor supported at all? No. > So given that these no longer fit the "old and busted" description, is Debian > going to stick with the decision to not support them? I'm sure we will, yes, though I'm not

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

> On Jun 9, 2024, at 03:02, Marc Haber wrote: > > On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 07:25:49 +, Laszlo Merenyi > wrote: >> I was able to make sudo (and visudo) executable working on this CPU, by >> recompiling the sudo-1.9.15p5 source code package on the target with >> manually removed "-fcf_protecti

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Sat, 08 Jun 2024 07:25:49 +, Laszlo Merenyi wrote: >I was able to make sudo (and visudo) executable working on this CPU, by >recompiling the sudo-1.9.15p5 source code package on the target with manually >removed "-fcf_protection" hardening option. > >I did not yet met any other program in

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

https://www.compmall.de/VDX3-EITX-75S-505669 is in stock.I found a variety of other shops selling similar boards, some having them in stock, some not.Am 08.06.2024 13:29 schrieb rhys :Yes, this is a known issue.  This is because Bookworm only supports 32-bit CPUs that are fully Intel compatible.  Y

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

Yes, this is a known issue. This is because Bookworm only supports 32-bit CPUs that are fully Intel compatible. You will find that there are other binaries such as ffmpeg that fail with the same problem. (This is from memory. I have a similar system that is "almost" Intel compatible, but can

Re: Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

Message-id: In-reply-to: <529d4728-d26f-43ff-a957-54b29652d...@neoquasar.org> References: <529d4728-d26f-43ff-a957-54b29652d...@neoquasar.org> Hello, I encountered a similar sudo issue with Bookworm installed on a Vortex86DX3 CPU based embedded computer. Vortex86 series chips are less known x86

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

Hi, On 22-10-2023 23:32, r...@neoquasar.org wrote: If the distinction between "supported" and "not supported" is going to come down to specific assembler-level instructions, it would seem that that wont tell most people anything. Well, if we know which instructions we don't support, it's not

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

device. From: RL Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 04:45 To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686 Paul Gevers writes: Is there an page that tabulates release name and detailed hardware baseline - if i want

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

Paul Gevers writes: > On 17-10-2023 22:16, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: >> Yes, assuming the pre-bookworm Debian i386 architecture fully supports it, >> as I don't know what *exactly* was allowed in the "almost i686" >> stretch-bullseye i386. > > According to the release notes (which *should* be au

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Wed, 2023-10-18 at 14:01 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 20:03 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 10:57 -0500, Justin wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I have recently encountered a case where a VIA C3 Nehemaiah CPU returns > > > "Illegal > > > Instruct

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 20:03 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 10:57 -0500, Justin wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I have recently encountered a case where a VIA C3 Nehemaiah CPU returns > > "Illegal > > Instruction" when trying to run 'sudo' or 'visudo'. > > > > After some poking

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 10:57:41 -0500, Justin wrote: >Similar issue in Gentoo: >https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=862201 > > >Similar issue in FreeBSD, more recent, but different processor: >https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/illegal-instruction-

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

Hi, On 17-10-2023 22:16, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: Yes, assuming the pre-bookworm Debian i386 architecture fully supports it, as I don't know what *exactly* was allowed in the "almost i686" stretch-bullseye i386. According to the release notes (which *should* be authoritative, but may have b

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 02:38:40PM -0500, Justin wrote: > Okay, so because the VIA C3 Nehemaiah chip doesn't properly implement > ENDBR32, it falls outside of the supported hardware, despite being otherwise > an "i686 class chip," correct? > > Or put another way, in classic Cyrix style, it's "al

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 02:38:40PM -0500, Justin wrote: > Okay, so because the VIA C3 Nehemaiah chip doesn't properly implement > ENDBR32, it falls outside of the supported hardware, despite being otherwise > an "i686 class chip," correct? Seems correct to me. > Or put another way, in classic Cy

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

Okay, so because the VIA C3 Nehemaiah chip doesn't properly implement ENDBR32, it falls outside of the supported hardware, despite being otherwise an "i686 class chip," correct? Or put another way, in classic Cyrix style, it's "almost a 686." As for what I was looking for, well, two things: 1.

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 10:57 -0500, Justin wrote: > Hello all, > > I have recently encountered a case where a VIA C3 Nehemaiah CPU returns > "Illegal > Instruction" when trying to run 'sudo' or 'visudo'. > > After some poking around, I discovered that the FreeBSD folks have > encountered this >

Re: Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:57:41AM -0500, Justin wrote: > Any other information I can provide that would help track this down? Track what down, sorry? It seems to me you already understand the reason for this error? Or are you asking how to make sure that your CPU indeed doesn't support this?

Illegal Instruction Using sudo in Bookworm on i686

Hello all, I have recently encountered a case where a VIA C3 Nehemaiah CPU returns "Illegal Instruction" when trying to run 'sudo' or 'visudo'. After some poking around, I discovered that the FreeBSD folks have encountered this as well, and that it appears to be an issue with GCC where the --f