[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
Launchpad has imported 7 comments from the remote bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484871. If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. On 2009-02-10T12:46:07+00:00 Vitaly wrote: +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #481682 +++ Created an attachment (id=330051) proposed fix in kernel-2.6.18-128.el5 and prior versions, arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S hunk of the linux-2.6-misc-utrace-update.patch contains incorrect optimization. As result, out-of-table 32-bit syscalls on the x86_64 kernel do not return ENOSYS (unless the caller is being ptraced). For example, glibc-2.9+ popen() goes mad when pipe2 syscall returns its number 331 instead of fail with ENOSYS. As result, FC10+ 32-bit processes on RHEL5 x86_64 kernel break once popen(3) is called. --- Additional comment from k...@sacred.ru on 2009-01-27 04:29:59 EDT --- The issue was found while running Fedora 10 containers on an RHEL5+OpenVZ kernel. Relative OpenVZ bug: http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1150 --- Additional comment from rol...@redhat.com on 2009-02-06 20:59:52 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331182) test case source Simple test case, compile with -m32 and run on x86-64 kernel. The RHEL5 code is the same (broken) as upstream. I'll fix it upstream and then RHEL5 should backport the change so it continues to match upstream. --- Additional comment from rol...@redhat.com on 2009-02-06 21:02:48 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331183) test case source Test case fixed to exit 0 for correct and nonzero for bug. Also, I forgot to note that to reproduce you have to have auditd disabled: /sbin/chkconfig auditd off; reboot --- Additional comment from rol...@redhat.com on 2009-02-06 21:34:13 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331187) fix posted upstream Wait to see if upstream takes this as is, but almost certain they will. With s,/x86/,/x86_64/,g this same patch applies to RHEL5 fine. --- Additional comment from vmaya...@redhat.com on 2009-02-07 04:57:47 EDT --- > The RHEL5 code is the same (broken) as upstream. RHEL5 is not broken, I wasn't able to reproduce it. As I understood, this is due to this check: testl $(_TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE|_TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT|_TIF_SECCOMP),threadinfo_flags(%r10) jnz ia32_tracesys And we have TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT set. Also, it's possible to make the patch shorter: --- a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S +++ b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S @@ -417,6 +417,7 @@ ENTRY(ia32_syscall) GET_THREAD_INFO(%r10) orl $TS_COMPAT,TI_status(%r10) testl $_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY,TI_flags(%r10) + movq $-ENOSYS,RAX-ARGOFFSET(%rsp) jnz ia32_tracesys ia32_do_syscall: cmpl $(IA32_NR_syscalls-1),%eax I've tested it yesterday, but didn't post upstream yet. --- Additional comment from rol...@redhat.com on 2009-02-07 17:21:41 EDT --- It is broken. See comment#3 on how to reproduce it. Shorter patch does not mean shorter code path, which is what matters. Anyway, I've already posted upstream. --- Additional comment from rol...@redhat.com on 2009-02-07 17:25:55 EDT --- Upstream fix was merged: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c09249f8d1b84344eca882547afdbffee8c09d14 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/339743/comments/0 On 2009-02-10T20:15:14+00:00 Roland wrote: I don't know what the point of this bug report is. The fix is already in upstream, and rawhide rebases from upstream daily. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/339743/comments/1 On 2009-02-10T21:34:21+00:00 Chuck wrote: I think you want to file this bug against Fedora 10 ?? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/339743/comments/2 On 2009-02-12T15:28:24+00:00 Vitaly wrote: (In reply to comment #2) > I think you want to file this bug against Fedora 10 ?? Yes. I don't know if this will be backported to 2.6.27.x Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/339743/comments/3 On 2009-02-18T07:57:17+00:00 Chuck wrote: Fixed in 2.6.27.18-170.2.28 and will send to -stable. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/339743/comments/4 On 2009-02-24T20:53:34+00:00 Fedora wrote: kernel-2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Changed in: linux-2.6 (Debian) Status: New = Fix Released -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
I just checked sources of karmic and don't see there any prebuilt openvz enabled kernels. I thought it was this bug that was preventing the openvz-enablde kernel to be built and put into the repository. -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
This bug was fixed in the package linux - 2.6.27-14.41 --- linux (2.6.27-14.41) intrepid-proposed; urgency=low [ Stefan Bader ] * Revert SAUCE: input: Blacklist digitizers from joydev.c - LP: #300143 linux (2.6.27-14.40) intrepid-proposed; urgency=low [ Amit Kucheria ] * Disable DEVKMEM for all archs on Intrepid - LP: #354221 * SAUCE: Quirk for BT USB device on MacbookPro to be reset before use - LP: #332443 [ Andy Isaacson ] * LIRC_PVR150: depends on VIDEO_IVTV - LP: #341477 * SAUCE: FSAM7400: select CHECK_SIGNATURE - LP: #341712 [ Andy Whitcroft ] * SAUCE: hotkey quirks for various Zepto Znote and Fujitsu Amilo laptops - LP: #330259 * SAUCE: unusual devs: add an entry for the ScanLogic SL11R-IDE 0.78 - LP: #336189 [ Anton Veretenenko ] * SAUCE: sony-laptop: add support for Sony Vaio FW series function/media keys - LP: #307592 [ Ayaz Abdulla ] * SAUCE: forcedeth: msi interrupt fix - LP: #288281 [ Chuck Short ] * SAUCE: [USB] Unusual Device support for Gold MP3 Player Energy - LP: #125250 [ Ike Panhc ] * squashfs: correct misspelling - LP: #322306 * SAUCE: Fixing symbol name in HECI module - LP: #336549 * Copy header files for various kernel media driver - LP: #322732 [ Stefan Bader ] * SAUCE: vgacon: Return the upper half of 512 character fonts - LP: #355057 * SAUCE: input: Blacklist digitizers from joydev.c - LP: #300143 [ Upstream Kernel Changes ] * libata: make sure port is thawed when skipping resets - LP: #269652 * x86-64: fix int $0x80 -ENOSYS return - LP: #339743 * rt2x00: Fix race conditions in flag handling - LP: #258985 * USB: cdc-acm: Add another conexant modem to the quirks - LP: #323829 * Bluetooth: Add fine grained mem_flags usage to btusb driver - LP: #268502 * Bluetooth: Handle bulk URBs in btusb driver from notify callback - LP: #268502 * Bluetooth: Submit bulk URBs along with interrupt URBs - LP: #268502 * hwmon: (abituguru3) Match partial DMI board name strings - LP: #298798 * x86: mtrr: don't modify RdDram/WrDram bits of fixed MTRRs - LP: #292619 * sis190: add identifier for Atheros AR8021 PHY - LP: #247889 * ath9k: implement IO serialization - LP: #373034 * ath9k: AR9280 PCI devices must serialize IO as well - LP: #373034 * acer-wmi: fix regression in backlight detection - LP: #86 -- Stefan Bader stefan.ba...@canonical.com Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:48:11 +0200 ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu Intrepid) Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
I have reproduced the bad return value of int $0x080 calls on the amd64 kernels in intrepid-updates, currently 2.6.27-14.37, and confirmed that the kernels in intrepid-proposed, version 2.6.27-14.36 (needing to be updated), fixes the issue. I've added a slightly modified testcase to the lp:qa-regression-testing bzr tree (I invoke int $0x080 directly via inline asm rather than call syscall(2) so that binaries can be built directly on amd64). Marking verification-done. ** Tags added: verification-done ** Tags removed: verification-needed -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu/karmic/linux-ports -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
Accepted linux into intrepid-proposed, the package will build now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance! ** Tags added: verification-needed -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Changed in: openvz-kernel Status: Confirmed = Fix Released -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Changed in: glibc (Ubuntu Intrepid) Status: New = Invalid -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Description changed: + SRU justification: + + Impact: A bug in the syscall implementation can cause incorrect behavior + when trying to use syscalls that are not implemented. + + Fix: Cherry pick from upstream to correctly return an error code in that + situation. + + Testcase: see test below. + + --- + There is something very wrong with the popen() implementation in Jaunty on i386. It works fine when run on the Jaunty kernel, but when run on the Lenny 2.6.26-1-amd64 kernel, it misbehaves as follows. The output of the subcommand, instead of being fed to the pipe, is fed directly to stdout; the pipe either returns errors or hangs forever. This causes weird errors in many programs running in a Jaunty i386 chroot on our Lenny build server. Attached is a small 5-line test program. Run gcc -static popen-test.c -o popen-test and then copy popen-test to a Lenny machine to see the problem. Correct output: $ uname -r 2.6.28-8-generic $ ./popen-test popen returned 0x1ec6400 ferror returned 0 fread returned 19 ferror returned 0 pclose returned 0 Incorrect output: $ uname -r 2.6.26-1-amd64 $ ./popen-test popen returned 0x935f688 ferror returned 0 SHOULD NOT DISPLAY This has been reproduced independently by two of us with two different Jaunty i386 installs and two different Lenny installs. ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu Intrepid) Status: In Progress = Fix Committed -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu Intrepid) Importance: Undecided = Medium -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
This bug was fixed in the package linux - 2.6.28-10.32 --- linux (2.6.28-10.32) jaunty; urgency=low [ Amit Kucheria ] * Delete prepare-ppa-source script [ Andy Isaacson ] * SAUCE: FSAM7400: select CHECK_SIGNATURE * SAUCE: LIRC_PVR150: depends on VIDEO_IVTV - LP: #341477 [ Ayaz Abdulla ] * SAUCE: forcedeth: msi interrupt fix - LP: #288281 [ Brad Figg ] * Updating armel configs to remove PREEMPT [ Catalin Marinas ] * Fix the VFP handling on the Feroceon CPU [ Huaxu Wan ] * SAUCE: (drop after 2.6.28) [Jaunty] iwlagn: fix iwlagn DMA mapping direction [ Ike Panhc ] * squashfs: correct misspelling - LP: #322306 [ Theodore Ts'o ] * SAUCE: (drop after 2.6.28) ext4: add EXT4_IOC_ALLOC_DA_BLKS ioctl * SAUCE: (drop after 2.6.28) ext4: Automatically allocate delay allocated blocks on close * SAUCE: (drop after 2.6.28) ext4: Automatically allocate delay allocated blocks on rename - LP: #317781 [ Tyler Hicks ] * SAUCE: (drop after 2.6.28) eCryptfs: Don't encrypt file key with filename key - LP: #342128 [ Upstream Kernel Changes ] * ALS: hda - Add support of iMac 24 Aluminium * USB: fix broken OTG makefile reference * ALSA: hda - add another MacBook Pro 3,1 SSID * ALSA: hda - Add model entry for HP dv4 * x86-64: fix int $0x80 -ENOSYS return - LP: #339743 -- Tim Gardner tim.gard...@canonical.com Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:16:07 -0600 ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu Jaunty) Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/ubuntu- jaunty.git;a=commit;h=73eec19c0301e46b46184cc8c16704ee6b9e26a5 ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu Jaunty) Status: In Progress = Fix Committed Target: None = ubuntu-9.04-beta ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu Intrepid) Assignee: (unassigned) = Stefan Bader (stefan-bader-canonical) Status: New = In Progress -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
Thanks. I tested the Jaunty amd64 kernel using the same bad-syscall- test binary; it works correctly and fixes the problem. I will test the Intrepid kernel soon. -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
Yep, the Intrepid amd64 kernel also fixes the problem. ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete = In Progress -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Bug watch added: Red Hat Bugzilla #484871 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484871 ** Also affects: fedora via https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484871 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Bug watch added: OpenVZ Bugzilla #1150 http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1150 ** Also affects: openvz-kernel via http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1150 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Changed in: openvz-kernel Status: Unknown = Confirmed ** Changed in: fedora Status: Unknown = Fix Released -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
It seems that the only sensible fix is to fix the kernel. If this will affect new system calls then this does seem like something worth fixing correctly. ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) = Andy Whitcroft (apw) Status: Triaged = In Progress ** Changed in: glibc (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed = Invalid -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
@Anders -- I have pulled down that kernel fix and applied it to Jaunty and Intrepid, could you test the kernels at the URL below and confirm you are happy that they fix the issue to your satisfaction. Please report any testing back here. Kernels are at the URLs below: http://people.ubuntu.com/~apw/lp339743-intrepid/ http://people.ubuntu.com/~apw/lp339743-jaunty/ ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu) Status: In Progress = Incomplete -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
And the first commit after v2.6.26 on which the problem is NOT exhibited is: commit ed8cae8ba01348bfd8f4648dd807b04d7f08 Author: Ulrich Drepper drep...@redhat.com Date: Wed Jul 23 21:29:30 2008 -0700 flag parameters: pipe This patch introduces the new syscall pipe2 which is like pipe but it also takes an additional parameter which takes a flag value. This patch implements the handling of O_CLOEXEC for the flag. I did not add support for the new syscall for the architectures which have a special sys_pipe implementation. I think the maintainers of those archs have the chance to go with the unified implementation but that's up to them. The implementation introduces do_pipe_flags. I did that instead of changing all callers of do_pipe because some of the callers are written in assembler. I would probably screw up changing the assembly code. To avoid breaking code do_pipe is now a small wrapper around do_pipe_flags. Once all callers are changed over to do_pipe_flags the old do_pipe function can be removed. -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
It seems that __have_pipe2 is being incorrectly set to 1 when running under kernels inside this range (8ab32bb..ed8cae8). Before 8ab32bb, __have_pipe2 is set to -1 and the program works correctly; starting with ed8cae8, pipe2() is actually implemented so the program works correctly. -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
Fascinating. The problem is that pipe2() is not actually returning -1 and setting errno = ENOSYS like it should. Instead, it is returning 331, which is __NR_pipe2, and leaving errno == 0. This affects every x86_64 kernel from v2.6.26 (8ab32bb) through v2.6.29-rc3, and was fixed by commit c09249f8d1b84344eca882547afdbffee8c09d14 Author: Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com Date: Fri Feb 6 18:15:18 2009 -0800 x86-64: fix int $0x80 -ENOSYS return One of my past fixes to this code introduced a different new bug. When using 32-bit int $0x80 entry for a bogus syscall number, the return value is not correctly set to -ENOSYS. This only happens when neither syscall-audit nor syscall tracing is enabled (i.e., never seen if auditd ever started). The fix makes the int $0x80 path match the sysenter and syscall paths. Reported-by: Dmitry V. Levin l...@altlinux.org Signed-off-by: Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Also affects: linux (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
To fix this on the kernel side, please add commit c09249f8d1b84344eca882547afdbffee8c09d14 to the Intrepid and Jaunty kernels. It may be possible for glibc to work around this problem on unpatched kernels, though it would not be very pretty. ** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #518921 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=518921 ** Also affects: linux-2.6 (Debian) via http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=518921 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
It is possible this is triggered by the fact that we do indeed default to running with auditing. That would make the problem moot for a default Intrepid and Jaunty install. I would need a complelling use case to support and SRU of this change given the default install is unaffected. -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
Kernels starting with 2.6.27 do not have that particular problem with popen() because they implement the pipe2() system call, so popen() does not tickle the missing syscall detection bug. But the attached source can be used to reproduce the missing syscall detection bug directly, by displaying the return value of syscall(666). There are likely to be more and more problems arising from this bug as new syscalls get implemented. To reproduce, statically compile this on an Intrepid or Jaunty i386 system: gcc -static bad-syscall-test.c -o bad-syscall-test and then run the resulting binary on an Intrepid or Jaunty amd64 system. Correct output: $ uname -rm 2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64 x86_64 $ ./bad-syscall-test syscall(666) returned -1 errno is 38 (Function not implemented) Incorrect output: $ uname -rm 2.6.28-8-generic x86_64 $ ./bad-syscall-test syscall(666) returned 666 errno is 0 (Success) ** Attachment added: bad-syscall-test.c http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23668401/bad-syscall-test.c -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided = Medium Status: New = Triaged -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
** Changed in: linux-2.6 (Debian) Status: Unknown = New -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 339743] Re: Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26
By defconfig, I meant defconfig plus CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION=y (without which it is not possible to run the i386 binary); that is the only option I changed. -- Jaunty i386 popen() misbehaves on x86_64 kernel 2.6.26 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/339743 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
