modutils and 2.4 kernel broken?

Yan Seiner yan at
Sat Dec 17 18:42:04 UTC 2005

I tried to send this privately, but it failed....

I want to add that I am now building the gnuarm toolchain based on gcc 
4.01; I will test Monday when I am back at work to see if that fixes the 
problem or has any other effect....


Yann E. MORIN wrote:

>Current svn compiles (gcc-4.0.2). insmod is the only applet selected.
>I'm currently trying qemu to further test this on a 2.4 (restarting my computer
>to test is too much a hassle). I'll re-try that later on. Yan, could you send
>me your .config (privately)?

(I like the coincidence of names.  I don't run across another Yan(n) to
often....  :-) )

I am trying to build an embedded environment for a board provided by
Technologic (TS).  The board is ARM based and I am using a cross-compiler.

I don't have access to my work computer from home, but all of the
configs I am using are available from TS.

The TS tools are available on their website.  The toolchain is at

It is possible that it is a toolchain+busybox issue rather than just a
busybox issue.  Unfortunately I have had no luck building any of the
later crosstools from Dan Kegel.  One of the TS board users has built a
gcc 3.4-based toolchain, but he's on X-mas holidays and can't make the
toolchain available until mid-January....

The kernel TS uses is at

And finally, the busybox config they used is at

They ran into the same problem as I did, so they ship with a standard
init (2.85) and busybox 1.00rc2,  Using that, the busybox insmod works fine.

The config file will build a buysybox init; I am guessing that they
simply remove the link and replace it with an init 2.85 binary.

The working filesystem that ships with the board is here:

Here's a snippet of the email between me and two of their engineers:

> Eddie, do you remember anything about this?  I seem to recall this 
> error faintly when trying to update to the latest busybox a long time 
> ago.  IIRC, it turned out they broke the 2.4 kernel insmod support in 
> the latest busybox code.  We just reverted back to the older, known 
> good code as we really didn't have a good reason for wanting to update 
> to the latest busybox anyway.

Yes, this is correct. We have been using busybox 1.00-rc2. We compiled
version 1.00 when it was released only to find the insmod command was
broken, and if I'm not mistaken it was the exact same error Yan is seeing.

Anyway, thanks for any input or comments.


More information about the busybox mailing list