[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Reproducible rRootage segfault with 2.6.25 and above (solved)

Alan Cox wrote:
> For the kernel bisect if you get stuck at a point it fails remember that
> point and then lie either yes/no to it working and carry on. If need be
> you can go back the other way.

I tried this quite a few times (you can always use replay and edit out
the lie) before posting (and using gitk to pick commits to) but it seems
like huge swathes of what I was interested in were inside this USB
issue. Eventually I broke down and used a loan laptop that didn't need
to boot from USB. I narrowed the issue down to 10 or so patches (from
8a423ff0c4a0472607bbed6790fdaeec54af2ebb to
0249c9c1e7505c2b020bcc6deaf1e0415de9943e which covers patches that
randomize brk and change vDSO) but after further incorrectly bisecting
to a patch it looks like the segfault was totally legit...

> Another completely off the wall guess would be that your client code is
> causing gcc to generate something where it is using data which has ended
> up below the stack pointer and the timings have changed. Either through
> gcc bug or passing around the address of an object that is out of
> context. At that point a signal will rewrite the data in fun ways
> producing results like you describe.

After reading this I went back and stuffed a bunch of asserts into the
rRootage code to see what was going on and found what looks like a bug
rRootage. I guess valgrind can't do array bounds checking - in fact this
is what I get for not reading the FAQ - . A workaround
seems to be to do capping on the value used to index the array -
. I even just tried using mudflap but that brought up so many spurious
warnings (supposedly it doesn't currently do well with C++) it wasn't

Sitsofe |

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-25 22:35    [W:0.039 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site