Hi Bob, Hi Erich; thanks for the profound work on this bug.
I've contacted the maintainer of uClibc-ng and received some homework to track this issue. The proposed patch by by ddrown needs testing and if successful, might be accepted. kp Am Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2017, 22:04:53 schrieb Erich Titl: > Hi Bob > > (copying this to leaf-devel) > > Sorry, I was too fast, I did not look into the i386 code but the one in > x86_64 > > Am 03.05.2017 um 20:03 schrieb Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp.: > > Eric, > > > > IRC user ddrown confirmed the x64 patch I mentioned earlier seems to fix > > the issue on i386 as well. I'm not really sure what to do with that > > information. Is it possible to patch Leaf with it? > > > > https://gist.github.com/ddrown/15e943b8fe1da398320b0c0518c95554 > > I don't know. It looks like the RESTORE2 macro is extended with a nop > operator in this patch. This looks like assembly code. > > ... > > This is i386... > > #define RESTORE(name, syscall) RESTORE2(name, syscall) > > #ifdef __NR_rt_sigaction > /* The return code for realtime-signals. */ > # define RESTORE2(name, syscall) \ > __asm__ ( \ > ".text\n" \ > "__" #name ":\n" \ > " movl $" #syscall ", %eax\n" \ > " int $0x80\n" \ > ); > RESTORE(restore_rt, __NR_rt_sigreturn) > #endif > > #ifdef __NR_sigreturn > /* For the boring old signals. */ > # undef RESTORE2 > # define RESTORE2(name, syscall) \ > __asm__ ( \ > ".text\n" \ > "__" #name ":\n" \ > " popl %eax\n" \ > " movl $" #syscall ", %eax\n" \ > " int $0x80\n" \ > ); > RESTORE(restore, __NR_sigreturn) > #endif > > and this is x86_64 > > #define RESTORE(name, syscall) RESTORE2(name, syscall) > #define RESTORE2(name, syscall) \ > __asm__ ( \ > "nop\n" \ > ".text\n" \ > "__" #name ":\n" \ > " movq $" #syscall ", %rax\n" \ > " syscall\n" \ > ); > > #ifdef __NR_rt_sigaction > /* The return code for realtime-signals. */ > RESTORE(restore_rt, __NR_rt_sigreturn) > #endif > #ifdef __NR_sigreturn > RESTORE(restore, __NR_sigreturn) > #endif > > So in i386 the patch appears to be possible, if it is necessary I don't > know as it looks like the nop operator could be used to make the > assembly code align to instruction size. The nop operator is already in > the x86_64 code. > > I have not followed uClibc development. I am wondering what their > position is on this issue. > > cheers > > ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel