w000t!
What init workarounds?
Rana Dasgupta wrote:
I fixed the StackOverflow functionality problem by going back and mapping
all pages ( guard, alternate stack ) meticulously before trying to protect
them. I think we should have done this in the first place. I also cleaned
up the previous initialization workarounds and asserts Geir and I had
discussed on the JIRA. The Stacktest and all other stack related tests now
pass.
I'll submit the patch against 1786 in the next few hours after running
acceptance tests.
Rana
On 10/16/06, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/16/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday 17 October 2006 00:01 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >> I tried to put some back. StackTest still doesn't work. It's
hard
> > to
> > >> believe... so I gave up and just kept going :)
> >
> > >I wonder if the test or the implementation are wrong. Maybe someone
> > who added
> > >the test initially could know the answer.
>
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with the stacktest test itself. The
> > implementation is not quite 100%complete( I think ), but has enough
> > functionality and the test passes on Windows. On Linux, it fails.
I am not
> > sure if this is a regression, or if this ever worked. There is a
JIRA issue
> > 1786. In summary, memory protection setup for the guard page fails
on the
> > main thread(only). So the guard does not work and the overflow is not
> > detected.
>
>
> mprotect fails with an ENOMEM which is either a mapping failure or a
> kernel failure. mprotect() has some known flakiness it seems, as per
> literature.
>
> The basic implementation on Linux is sound. There are secondary
design
> issues,but we can only get to them later after we have figured out
why the
> guard setup fails on the main thread.
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
