[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3E5A0FA7E9CA944F9D5414FEC6C712205C8ABDB0@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:37:03 +0000
From: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Riikonen <priikone@....fi>,
"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>,
Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Oops with tip/x86/fpu
> From: Oleg Nesterov [mailto:oleg@...hat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 10:22 AM
>
> On 03/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
>
> Does it trigger something else on your machine?
>
> Oleg.
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <signal.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <ucontext.h>
>
> void sighup(int sig, siginfo_t *info, void *ctxt) {
> struct ucontext *uctxt = ctxt;
> struct sigcontext *sctxt = (void*)&uctxt->uc_mcontext;
>
> printf("SIGHUP! %p\n", sctxt->fpstate);
> sctxt->fpstate = (void *)1;
sctxt->fpstate=(void *)1 changes the fpstate pointer in the sigcontext. It will generate segfault and bad frame info in kernel.
This is expected behavior, right? Is this still a valid test?
Thanks.
-Fenghua
--
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