lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [LTP] mmapstress03 weirdness? (fwd)
Date
>         if (mmap((caddr_t)(1UL << (POINTER_SIZE  - 1)) - pagesize,
> (size_t)((1UL << (POINTER_SIZE - 1)) - pagesize),
> PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_FIXED|
> MAP_SHARED, 0, 0)
> != (caddr_t)-1)

> With 32-bit userland, this boils down to:
>
> | mmap addr 0x7fff0000 size 0x7fff0000
> | mmap returned 0x7fff0000
>
> i.e. mmap() succeeds,

Yes, on a powerpc64 kernel, every 32-bit userspace process has 4GB
available (well, except the lowest few pages). The process text sits
normally at 1M and the shared libs around 256M.

> but (1) the test expects it to fail, so the test returns
> TFAIL,

That's a bug in the test then.

> but (2) ltp-pan still reports that the tests passed?

Sounds like another bug.

> In addition, sometimes mmapstress03 fails due to SEGV. I created a
> small test
> program that just does the above mmap(), and depending on the
> distro and what
> else I print later it crashes with a SEGV, too. Probably this
> happens because
> the mmap() did succeed, and corrupted some existing mappings,

It probably killed the stack, which sits all the way up near 4G.

> JFYI, with 64-bit userland, this boils down to:
>
> | mmap addr 0x7fffffffffff0000 size 0x7fffffffffff0000
> | mmap returned 0xffffffffffffffff
>
> i.e. mmap() fails as expected, and the test succeeds.

It tries to map space that is reserved for the kernel (c000...)

> Does all of this sound OK?

Seems to me everything works fine, except the tests themselves.


Segher



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-21 18:13    [W:0.038 / U:4.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site