Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:04:35AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > Which kernel? I've not yet tested 2.6.20. I'll try debugging this > subsequently. 2.6.20-rc6-mm3 on 2.6.20 + patches works for me. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Friday 16 February 2007 20:02, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:05:56PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > > Jeff, I verified my patch is _almost_ enough for 2.6.18 for fully booting > > a 32bit UML; on 2.6.18 I had to also add PTRACE_GET/SET_THREAD_AREA (this > > fix was merged in 2.6.19) to avoid tons of TLS errors. > > I'm not seeing that. With the current set of patches, I have 32-bit UMLs > happily booting on x86_64. Which kernel? I've not yet tested 2.6.20. I'll try debugging this subsequently. -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can add them to my list! Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:05:56PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: > Jeff, I verified my patch is _almost_ enough for 2.6.18 for fully booting a > 32bit UML; on 2.6.18 I had to also add PTRACE_GET/SET_THREAD_AREA (this fix > was merged in 2.6.19) to avoid tons of TLS errors. I'm not seeing that. With the current set of patches, I have 32-bit UMLs happily booting on x86_64. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thursday 15 February 2007 18:01, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:51:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Whatever happens, please ensure that the final fix makes it into -stable > > as well. Jeff's version of this patch wasn't cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Paolo's patch was sent to -stable. His should be used everywhere, and mine > should be dropped. Jeff, I verified my patch is _almost_ enough for 2.6.18 for fully booting a 32bit UML; on 2.6.18 I had to also add PTRACE_GET/SET_THREAD_AREA (this fix was merged in 2.6.19) to avoid tons of TLS errors. On 2.6.19, the crash at boot is removed (btw, that crash output no message - I hope that with your fatal/nonfatal/etc. introduction I would get a message) but another one happens when starting init. I'll test 2.6.20 ASAP. Bye -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can add them to my list! Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thursday 15 February 2007 18:01, Jeff Dike wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:51:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: Whatever happens, please ensure that the final fix makes it into -stable as well. Jeff's version of this patch wasn't cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paolo's patch was sent to -stable. His should be used everywhere, and mine should be dropped. Jeff, I verified my patch is _almost_ enough for 2.6.18 for fully booting a 32bit UML; on 2.6.18 I had to also add PTRACE_GET/SET_THREAD_AREA (this fix was merged in 2.6.19) to avoid tons of TLS errors. On 2.6.19, the crash at boot is removed (btw, that crash output no message - I hope that with your fatal/nonfatal/etc. introduction I would get a message) but another one happens when starting init. I'll test 2.6.20 ASAP. Bye -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can add them to my list! Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:05:56PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: Jeff, I verified my patch is _almost_ enough for 2.6.18 for fully booting a 32bit UML; on 2.6.18 I had to also add PTRACE_GET/SET_THREAD_AREA (this fix was merged in 2.6.19) to avoid tons of TLS errors. I'm not seeing that. With the current set of patches, I have 32-bit UMLs happily booting on x86_64. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Friday 16 February 2007 20:02, Jeff Dike wrote: On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:05:56PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: Jeff, I verified my patch is _almost_ enough for 2.6.18 for fully booting a 32bit UML; on 2.6.18 I had to also add PTRACE_GET/SET_THREAD_AREA (this fix was merged in 2.6.19) to avoid tons of TLS errors. I'm not seeing that. With the current set of patches, I have 32-bit UMLs happily booting on x86_64. Which kernel? I've not yet tested 2.6.20. I'll try debugging this subsequently. -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can add them to my list! Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:04:35AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote: Which kernel? I've not yet tested 2.6.20. I'll try debugging this subsequently. 2.6.20-rc6-mm3 on 2.6.20 + patches works for me. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:51:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Whatever happens, please ensure that the final fix makes it into -stable > as well. Jeff's version of this patch wasn't cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paolo's patch was sent to -stable. His should be used everywhere, and mine should be dropped. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:51:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: Whatever happens, please ensure that the final fix makes it into -stable as well. Jeff's version of this patch wasn't cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paolo's patch was sent to -stable. His should be used everywhere, and mine should be dropped. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:43:41 +0100 Blaisorblade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I sent an equivalent patch in earlier today: > Doh! Interesting this timing... > > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > > === > > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > > @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys32_ptrace(long reques > > __u32 val; > > > > switch (request) { > > + case PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS: > > + request = PTRACE_SETOPTIONS; > > case PTRACE_TRACEME: > > case PTRACE_ATTACH: > > case PTRACE_KILL: > > > > I change the request so that PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS doesn't need to > > propogate any further. However, it is present in include/asm-x86_64, > > so I guess that counts as being part of the x86_64 ABI. That being > > the case, I guess my patch can be dropped in favor of this one. > > It is handled in ptrace_request, unless there are include problems. I'm going > to reboot and test mine for any remaining problem. Whatever happens, please ensure that the final fix makes it into -stable as well. Jeff's version of this patch wasn't cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thursday 15 February 2007 03:54, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:34:23AM +0100, Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso wrote: > > Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > > === > > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > > +++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys32_ptrace(long reques > > case PTRACE_SINGLESTEP: > > case PTRACE_DETACH: > > case PTRACE_SYSCALL: > > + case PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS: > > case PTRACE_SETOPTIONS: > > case PTRACE_SET_THREAD_AREA: > > case PTRACE_GET_THREAD_AREA: > > I sent an equivalent patch in earlier today: Doh! Interesting this timing... > Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > === > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c > @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys32_ptrace(long reques > __u32 val; > > switch (request) { > + case PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS: > + request = PTRACE_SETOPTIONS; > case PTRACE_TRACEME: > case PTRACE_ATTACH: > case PTRACE_KILL: > > I change the request so that PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS doesn't need to > propogate any further. However, it is present in include/asm-x86_64, > so I guess that counts as being part of the x86_64 ABI. That being > the case, I guess my patch can be dropped in favor of this one. It is handled in ptrace_request, unless there are include problems. I'm going to reboot and test mine for any remaining problem. -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can add them to my list! Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thursday 15 February 2007 03:54, Jeff Dike wrote: On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:34:23AM +0100, Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso wrote: Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c === --- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c +++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys32_ptrace(long reques case PTRACE_SINGLESTEP: case PTRACE_DETACH: case PTRACE_SYSCALL: + case PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS: case PTRACE_SETOPTIONS: case PTRACE_SET_THREAD_AREA: case PTRACE_GET_THREAD_AREA: I sent an equivalent patch in earlier today: Doh! Interesting this timing... Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c === --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys32_ptrace(long reques __u32 val; switch (request) { + case PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS: + request = PTRACE_SETOPTIONS; case PTRACE_TRACEME: case PTRACE_ATTACH: case PTRACE_KILL: I change the request so that PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS doesn't need to propogate any further. However, it is present in include/asm-x86_64, so I guess that counts as being part of the x86_64 ABI. That being the case, I guess my patch can be dropped in favor of this one. It is handled in ptrace_request, unless there are include problems. I'm going to reboot and test mine for any remaining problem. -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can add them to my list! Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression - PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:43:41 +0100 Blaisorblade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sent an equivalent patch in earlier today: Doh! Interesting this timing... Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c === --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys32_ptrace(long reques __u32 val; switch (request) { + case PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS: + request = PTRACE_SETOPTIONS; case PTRACE_TRACEME: case PTRACE_ATTACH: case PTRACE_KILL: I change the request so that PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS doesn't need to propogate any further. However, it is present in include/asm-x86_64, so I guess that counts as being part of the x86_64 ABI. That being the case, I guess my patch can be dropped in favor of this one. It is handled in ptrace_request, unless there are include problems. I'm going to reboot and test mine for any remaining problem. Whatever happens, please ensure that the final fix makes it into -stable as well. Jeff's version of this patch wasn't cc'ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/