Subject: Re: serious bug introduced in Linux compatibility
To: Jarommr Dolecek <email@example.com>
From: Emmanuel Dreyfus <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/24/2001 10:58:16
> Note linux_e_proc_exec() is also called via linux_e_proc_fork().
> The e_proc_fork() hook is called in fork1(), before the child's
> vmspace is set up (i.e. before call uvm_fork() - it has to be this
> way, since child uses completely different MD exit path from
Ok, this is the problem. I did not expect vmspace to be invalid when I
wrote ths brk() fix.
> So it's expected that the new process's vmspace would be invalid
> or NULL at time linux_e_proc_fork() is called. I have what I think
> is almost correct solution already (see "hard lockups with -current
> and Netscape" thread on current-users@); will commit it shortly.
In the meantime, shouldn't we bracket the brk() fix in linux_exec.c with
an #ifdef notyet?
This fix enabled java to run on the PowerPC, but it seems it broke lot
of things on other ports.
> Yeah, the bug was introduced in the recent brk-related commit.
> BTW, the brk() handling is not thread aware; all the
> threads should share single brk() value, since they also
> share vmspace, so that part of p_emuldata should be shared
> between threads. This may need a change to interface of e_proc_fork()
> hook, so that it would know fork1() flags and may act accordingly.
Do you already have an idea for this?
Emmanuel Dreyfus. Cette signature vous est fournie telle quelle, sans
aucune garantie de fonctionnement. En la lisant, vous acceptez
implicitement tous les degats qu'elle pourrait causer, materiellement
ou logiciellement. email@example.com