Hi Adhemerval, On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 11:01 -0300, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > It fails on the two different sparc64 machines I usually use for glibc testing as well: > > azanella@catbus ~ $ /lib64/libc.so.6 | head -n 1 > GNU C Library (Gentoo 2.38-r9 (patchset 9)) stable release version 2.38. > azanella@catbus ~ $ uname -a > Linux catbus.sparc.dev.gentoo.org 6.1.72 #1 SMP Fri Jan 12 15:00:51 PST 2024 sparc64 sun4v UltraSparc T5 (Niagara5) GNU/Linux > azanella@catbus ~ $ ./more_clone_attack > effective FP in clone() with waste 0 = 7feffee09f0 > this is 318 64-bit words above the next page boundary > clone: Bad address > Problem detected at 1 pages distance > > > azanella@ravirin:~$ /lib/sparc64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 | head -n 1 > GNU C Library (Debian GLIBC 2.37-15) stable release version 2.37. > azanella@ravirin:~$ uname -a > Linux ravirin 4.19.0-5-sparc64 #1 Debian 4.19.37-6 (2019-07-18) sparc64 GNU/Linux > azanella@ravirin:~$ ./more_clone_attack > effective FP in clone() with waste 0 = 7feffa3ae50 > this is 458 64-bit words above the next page boundary > clone: Bad address > Problem detected at 1 pages distance > > > And I see similar failures on qemu as well. Thanks for the confirmation. I was also able to reproduce it even on Debian Wheezy with kernel 3.2.0 and glibc 2.13, so it seems the bug is very old. Do you think it's a kernel or glibc bug? Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
