Marc Heckmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:58:32PM -0700, Hui Huang wrote:
>> The segfault messages look benign - they are the implicit NULL
>> checks within JVM.
>
> But look at the following discussion, Andi Kleen one of the x86_64
> kernel developers says that the kernel has been fixed not to log the
> messages if it is not a real segfault:
>
> http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2839
>
> But maybe they fixed 2.4 and forgot to do so for 2.6.x?
It looks like it's supposed to be fixed in 2.6 too. But a quick test
shows that it actually works the other way round, at least in 2.6.6:
Only catched segfaults get logged!
Here's a patch which fixed the problem for me;
--- arch/x86_64/mm/fault.c.orig 2004-06-10 19:51:45.000000000 +0200
+++ arch/x86_64/mm/fault.c 2004-06-10 20:38:38.000000000 +0200
@@ -210,11 +210,11 @@ static int is_errata93(struct pt_regs *r
int unhandled_signal(struct task_struct *tsk, int sig)
{
- /* Warn for strace, but not for gdb */
- if ((tsk->ptrace & (PT_PTRACED|PT_TRACESYSGOOD)) == PT_PTRACED)
- return 0;
- return (tsk->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN) ||
- (tsk->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL);
+ /* I'm not sure about PT_TRACESYSGOOD. Is gdb supposed
+ to use PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD? Mine doesn't. */
+ return !(tsk->ptrace & PT_PTRACED) &&
+ ((tsk->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN) ||
+ (tsk->sighand->action[sig-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_DFL));
}
int page_fault_trace;
@@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ bad_area_nosemaphore:
(address >> 32))
return;
- if (exception_trace && !unhandled_signal(tsk, SIGSEGV)) {
+ if (exception_trace && unhandled_signal(tsk, SIGSEGV)) {
printk(KERN_INFO
"%s[%d]: segfault at %016lx rip %016lx rsp %016lx error %lx\n",
tsk->comm, tsk->pid, address, regs->rip,
> It also seems to me that the Sun 1.4.2 JVM did not function
> correctly (1.5.0-beta for x86_64 did actually dump core.) in that
> the webapp was not functioning correctly.
32-bit VMs should work OK (unless you use noexec32=all,on; only
Blackdown 1.4.2 works fine with that).
As for 64-bit VMs, please wait a few days: 1.4.2-fcs will fix quite a few
x86_64 specific bugs.
Juergen
--
Juergen Kreileder, Blackdown Java-Linux Team
http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/java2-status/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
