Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Finn,

Am 21.04.2023 um 09:58 schrieb Michael Schmitz:
Hi Finn,

On 20/04/23 20:55, Finn Thain wrote:

But in any case, it looks like we can eliminate the bus error code. Same
fault on both 030 and 040 with very different bus error handlers is
highly unlikely.

There's no failure on '040. QEMU and Motorola '040 gave the same result.

Sorry, my fault - I interpreted your mail as saying 030 and 040 gave the
same result.

Back to the drawing board ... I've got kernel images back to 2.4.30 and
2.6.37 to try and test. I'm also trying with rt signals and alternate
signal stack (rt signals show the same behaviour).

2.4.30 behaves the same as recent kernels - stack corruption unless signal handlers use the alternate signal stack.

We already knew the 030 bus error code hasn't seen changes since 2.6, so this isn't much of a surprise.

I'll add some logging to the signal frame setup to print the user stack pointer, and perhaps do the same in the bus error handler (when hitting a moveml instruction).

How often did a page fault happen when executing moveml, in other programs?

Cheers,

	Michael







[Index of Archives]     [Video for Linux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux S/390]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux