Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:16:20 +0100 | From | Michal Simek <> | Subject | Re: Split 'flush_old_exec' into two functions - 221af7f87b97431e3ee21ce4b0e77d5411cf1549 |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Michal Simek wrote: >> Hi Peter and Linus, >> >> commit 221af7f87b97431e3ee21ce4b0e77d5411cf1549 breaks anything on Microblaze. > > Gaah. My original version of that patch very much tried to make it a no-op > semantically, but then Peter made some preparatory changes for the next > patch, so it actually changes semantics a bit. I was expecting that to be > benign, but clearly there are issues.
Would it be possible to cc me or send that patches to linux-next? I am doing every day tests and report results on my site. I would be able to catch up bugs earlier.
> >> None reported any problem that's why I think that is Microblaze related. > > Well, our previous handling of the critical stage of 'execve()' when we > actually switch from the old process to the new was _so_ grotty that many > architectures ended up playing some really subtle games there. The whole > point of the patch is to get rid of the games, but it's entirely possible > that Microblaze (and others) had crazy things going on that broke when we > made the ordering more straightforward. > > That said, Microblaze is not one of the architectures I would have > expected to have problems. It has one of the most straightforward > "flush_thread()" implementations in the whole kernel (it's a no-op ;), and > that's where most of the hacky things were for the architectures that > needed the change. And it has no "arch_pick_mmap_layout()" issues or > anything else that tends to depend on personality bits or whatever. > > Microblaze is a no-MMU platform, isn't it?
Microblaze has support for both platforms MMU and noMMU. Only MMU version is affected. noMMU version is without any problem.
Which binary format does it > use? It looks like _some_ binaries work (it seems to happily be running a > shell to actually do those startup scripts) while others have problems. Is > there a difference between "/bin/sh" and the binaries that seem to be > problematic (like /bin/mount and /bin/ifup).
Most of them is busybox ELF with shared libraries. I tried non-shared ELF and the problem is the same.
> > Are the failing binaries all setuid ones, for example? Or shared vs > non-shared? Or ELF vs FLAT or whatever?
no setuid.
Thanks, Michal
> > Linus
-- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng) PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663,+42-0-721842854 f: +61-7-30090663
| |