David Miller writes:
> From: Mikael Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:23:07 +0200 (MEST)
>
> > The 2.6.21-rc5 kernel compiled with gcc-4.2.0 20070316 boots ok
> > but is thrown into an infinite loop by `hdparm -Tt /dev/hda'.
> > Sysrq-P tells me that the call chain in the loop is:
> >
> > __up_read or __handle_mm_fault [varies]
> > do_sparc64_fault
> > sparc64_realfault_common
> > compat_sys_shmat
> >
> > The kernel works when built with gcc-3.4.6, 4.0.4, or 4.1.2.
> >
> > I'll do some more debugging next week, if I have time.
>
> Any updates?
Yes, but I can't yet reproduce the problem in a user-mode
test case, or pinpoint the exact object code that broke.
In ipc/compat.c:compat_sys_shmat():
long compat_sys_shmat(int first, int second, compat_uptr_t third, int version,
void __user *uptr)
{
int err;
unsigned long raddr;
compat_ulong_t __user *uaddr;
if (version == 1)
return -EINVAL;
err = do_shmat(first, uptr, second, &raddr);
if (err < 0)
return err;
uaddr = compat_ptr(third);
return put_user(raddr, uaddr);
}
The syscall originated from a 32-bit process, and `third'
is a high user-space pointer 0xffxxxxxx. If I insert a
printk("uaddr %#lx third %#x\n", (long)uaddr, third) just
before the final put_user(), I find that with gcc-4.2.0
uaddr will be 0xffffffffffxxxxxx, i.e. sign-extended from
third, and this causes sparc64_realfault_common() to loop.
With gcc-4.1.2 uaddr is 0x00000000ffxxxxxx and put_user() works.
Both gcc-4.2.0 and gcc-4.1.2 compile compat_ptr(u32) as a nop,
so it seems that something earlier in the call chain must have
left a sign-extended value in the argument register for `third'.
And true enough, in arch/sparc64/kernel/sys32.S we find that
the entry for sys32_ipc() explicitly sign-extends %o1/%o2/%o3.
%o3 is passed on as-is to `u32 third' in compat_sys_ipc() and
`compat_uptr_t third' in compat_sys_shmat().
I don't know the sparc64 ABI rules for how the high 32 bits
of a 64-bit register containing a 32-bit value are supposed
to be (sign-extended, zero-extended, or undefined), but it
seems that u32 values should be zero-extended, which would
make the sign-extension in sys32.S broken.
At this point I'm lost. I don't even understand how this
could have worked with gcc < 4.2.0, much less where exactly
gcc-4.2.0 broke things.
/Mikael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
