On 12/02/24 13:32, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > 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 > I am not sure, I was leaning to some clone change in recent changes; but since you did see on version as old as 2.13 I don't think it is related to glibc clone implementation. It really make me to believe it is something related to kernel because running the regression program under strace I could not trigger the issue; nor by trying adding a printf just before clone call.
