lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: m68k libc5 regression
On Tue, 27 May 2008 00:19:32 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 May 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > Recently I noticed a regression when running an old libc5 binary
> > (amiga-lilo) on m68k. It fails with the error message:
>
> Hmm, libc5 is known to make broken assumptions about brk location, that's
> why we introduced CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK, do you have that option turned on?
>
> > So I bisected it to:
> > commit 4cc6028d4040f95cdb590a87db478b42b8be0508
> > Author: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> > Date: Wed Feb 6 22:39:44 2008 +0100
> > brk: check the lower bound properly
>
> Indeed, this should take CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK into account. Does the patch
> below fix it? (assuming that you have CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK=y):
>
>
>
> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
>
> brk: check lower bound properly
>
> The check in sys_brk() on minimum value the brk might have must take
> CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK setting into account. When this option is turned on
> (i.e. we support ancient legacy binaries, e.g. libc5-linked stuff), the
> lower bound on brk value is mm->end_code, otherwise the brk start is
> allowed to be arbitrarily shifted.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index fac6633..834118b 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -245,10 +245,16 @@ asmlinkage unsigned long sys_brk(unsigned long brk)
> unsigned long rlim, retval;
> unsigned long newbrk, oldbrk;
> struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> + unsigned long min_brk;
>
> down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>
> - if (brk < mm->start_brk)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK
> + min_brk = mm->end_code;
> +#else
> + min_brk = mm->start_brk;
> +#endif
> + if (brk < min_brk)
> goto out;
>

OK, we have a problem here.

Somebody has gone and checked this patch into their tree and it now
appears in linux-next.

I do not know how to work out how this patch got into linux-next.

It's not in any of the trees which I pull so I guess that person has
been shuffling URLs without telling me.

One of the reasons this is bad is that, frankly, I trust almost nobody
to remember to backport fixes into 2.6.25.x. I'm not even at all
confident that our mystery new part-time memory management maintainer
will remember to merge this into 2.6.26. The fact that this person
failed to add a Cc:stable@kernel.org to the changelog doesn't inspire
confidence.

I shall merge this fix into my tree (y'know - the one where memory
management patches are hosted) and I'll get it into 2.6.26 and shall
offer it to the -stable team. This will cause me to get collisions
with the duplicated patch in linux-next but fortunately it is small.
This time.

And to whoever did this: please don't.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-01 09:57    [W:1.382 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site