Hi,
do we have confirmation, that this fixes our problems with the sparc
buildd? If yes, i would say, lets reschedule another round of kernels
for r2.
Martin
Greetings
Martin
On Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:41:11 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 7 06:14:01 2007
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: from localhost (mail.recluse.de [78.47.255.98]) by
> mail.recluse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51FF392926 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:14:01 +0100 (CET)
> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at recluse.de
> Received: from mail.recluse.de ([78.47.255.98]) by localhost
> (mail.recluse.de [78.47.255.98]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id
> G2XieC59A2xV for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:14:00 +0100
> (CET)
> Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by
> mail.recluse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8373A392919 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:13:58 +0100 (CET)
> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sunset.davemloft.net
> (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BEBEC8C526; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:13:57 -0800 (PST)
> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:13:56 -0800 (PST)
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
> PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Fix for sparc64 cpu hangs.
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:34:33 -0800 (PST)
>
> > [FUTEX]: Fix address computation in compat code.
>
> Sorry, I just noticed there is a second handle_futex_death()
> call in compat_exit_robust_list() which has the same
> address computation bug.
>
> Here is an updated patch:
>
> [FUTEX]: Fix address computation in compat code.
>
> compat_exit_robust_list() computes a pointer to the
> futex entry in userspace as follows:
>
> (void __user *)entry + futex_offset
>
> 'entry' is a 'struct robust_list __user *', and
> 'futex_offset' is a 'compat_long_t' (typically a 's32').
>
> Things explode if the 32-bit sign bit is set in futex_offset.
>
> Type promotion sign extends futex_offset to a 64-bit value before
> adding it to 'entry'.
>
> This triggered a problem on sparc64 running 32-bit applications which
> would lock up a cpu looping forever in the fault handling for the
> userspace load in handle_futex_death().
>
> Compat userspace runs with address masking (wherein the cpu zeros out
> the top 32-bits of every effective address given to a memory operation
> instruction) so the sparc64 fault handler accounts for this by
> zero'ing out the top 32-bits of the fault address too.
>
> Since the kernel properly uses the compat_uptr interfaces, kernel side
> accesses to compat userspace work too since they will only use
> addresses with the top 32-bit clear.
>
> Because of this compat futex layer bug we get into the following loop
> when executing the get_user() load near the top of handle_futex_death():
>
> 1) load from address '0xfffffffff7f16bd8', FAULT
> 2) fault handler clears upper 32-bits, processes fault
> for address '0xf7f16bd8' which succeeds
> 3) goto #1
>
> I want to thank Bernd Zeimetz, Josip Rodin, and Fabio Massimo Di Nitto
> for their tireless efforts helping me track down this bug.
>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/futex_compat.c b/kernel/futex_compat.c
> index 00b5726..1931457 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex_compat.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex_compat.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,15 @@ fetch_robust_entry(compat_uptr_t *uentry, struct
> robust_list __user **entry,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void __user *futex_uaddr(struct robust_list *entry,
> + compat_long_t futex_offset)
> +{
> + compat_uptr_t base = ptr_to_compat(entry);
> + void __user *uaddr = compat_ptr(base + futex_offset);
> +
> + return uaddr;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Walk curr->robust_list (very carefully, it's a userspace list!)
> * and mark any locks found there dead, and notify any waiters.
> @@ -76,11 +85,13 @@ void compat_exit_robust_list(struct task_struct *curr)
> * A pending lock might already be on the list, so
> * dont process it twice:
> */
> - if (entry != pending)
> - if (handle_futex_death((void __user *)entry +
> futex_offset,
> - curr, pi))
> - return;
> + if (entry != pending) {
> + void __user *uaddr = futex_uaddr(entry,
> + futex_offset);
>
> + if (handle_futex_death(uaddr, curr, pi))
> + return;
> + }
> if (rc)
> return;
> uentry = next_uentry;
> @@ -94,9 +105,11 @@ void compat_exit_robust_list(struct task_struct *curr)
>
> cond_resched();
> }
> - if (pending)
> - handle_futex_death((void __user *)pending + futex_offset,
> - curr, pip);
> + if (pending) {
> + void __user *uaddr = futex_uaddr(pending, futex_offset);
> +
> + handle_futex_death(uaddr, curr, pip);
> + }
> }
>
> asmlinkage long
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life
No manual entry for real-life
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
