[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091126172524.GA14768@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:25:24 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: powerpc: fork && stepping (Was: [RFC,PATCH 0/14] utrace/ptrace)
On 11/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 11/26, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
> > /bin/sh: line 5: 17325 Aborted ${dir}$tst
> > FAIL: step-fork
>
> Good to know, thanks again Ananth.
>
> I'll take a look. Since I know nothing about powerpc, I can't
> promise the quick fix ;)
>
> The bug was found by code inspection, but the fix is not trivial
> because it depends on arch/, and it turns out the arch-independent
> fix in
>
> ptrace-copy_process-should-disable-stepping.patch
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits&m=125789789322573
>
> doesn't work.
Just noticed the test-case fails in handler_fail(). Most probably
this means it is killed by SIGALRM because either parent or child
hang in wait(). Perhaps we have another (ppc specific?) bug, but
currently I do not understand how this is possible, this should
not be arch-dependent.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists