On pon, lip 06, 2009 at 08:31:35 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > | To my untrained eye it looks like the cmpl corresponds to: > | > | 1841 if (tty->driver->type == TTY_DRIVER_TYPE_PTY && > | 1842 tty->driver->subtype == PTY_TYPE_MASTER) > | > | in drivers/char/tty_io.c > > I don't yet have the exact version of tty_io.c so the line numbers don't > match, but even so isn't the above 'cmpl' comparing a constant 0x10004 > with the %rdx+0x9c address ? If so, I am not sure how it matches up to > either TTY_DRIVER_TYPE_PTY (0x0004) or PTY_TYPE_MASTER (0x0001). > > Wouldn't the above 'if' require two separate compare instructions ? They're two 16-bit words occupying the same 32-bit word, so presumably gcc optimised it into a single memory access. > Is it possibly related to this bug where they talk of some sort of > corruption going on with tty data structures (kernel versions appear > to be close, but need to double check). > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/16/131 2.6.30 has no tty_ldisc_hangup (the function being touched) at all. I guess it was added while restructuring the tty layer. I'll have a look at it though, thanks for the link. Best regards, Grzegorz Nosek _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
