Julian Elischer wrote:
It's not that likely to roll, but...
static int complained = 6;
if (complained-- ) {
if (complained) {
complained--;
printf (process (PID %d) Use static LDT allocation.\n,
td-td_proc-p_pid);
printf (man i386_set_ldt for more
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
But if we only use the dynamic allocation then it can only fail for
a combination of 3rd party code.
You meant to say static here, e.g. when there are two libraries
linked into a single aplication, and both libraries want to get
entry #6, right?
In the dynamic case,
Julian Elischer wrote:
+ if (ldt_warnings++ NUM_LDT_WARNINGS) {
Still broken on rollover; use:
+ if (ldt_warnings NUM_LDT_WARNINGS) {
+ ldt_warnings++;
-- Terry
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
looking at it further, it appears that NLDT is not really a
'reservation' as much as a description of how much space we may
need to allocate initially.
Correct, except it seems that there are some bugs from the kernel using
the code and data
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
I also noticed that if we disable the 'splat' mode, we'd break sysVR4
binary code as they do that.. (though it's #if 0'd out at the moment)
not to mention linux (more important..) though I might add that
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:53:31AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
But if we only use the dynamic allocation then it can only fail for
a combination of 3rd party code.
You meant to say static here, e.g. when there are two libraries
linked into a single aplication, and
Hi,
after upgrading the Kernel I found that the glx-related programs of
the NVidia graphics driver die in calls to sysarch. Here is a truss
fragment of a 'glxinfo' run:
sysarch(0x1,0xbfbffb14) ERR#22 'Invalid argument'
SIGNAL 10
SIGNAL 10
Process stopped because of: 16
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
Hi,
after upgrading the Kernel I found that the glx-related programs of
the NVidia graphics driver die in calls to sysarch. Here is a truss
fragment of a 'glxinfo' run:
sysarch(0x1,0xbfbffb14)ERR#22 'Invalid
* Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-01 23:44]:
can you compile your sys_machdep.c with the option -DDEBUG?
I noticed there is a debug printf that is enabled byu this and may show
what request the NVIDIA people are making.
This is what gets logged:
Aug 1 23:42:43 tybalt kernel:
* Thorsten Greiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-01 23:47]:
I will test wether the problem still occurs with version 1.84 of
sys_machdep.c and let you know.
Yup, reverting to 1.84 unbreaks this for me. Looking at the changes
made it appears to me that the check
if (uap-start NLDT ||
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Thorsten Greiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-01 23:47]:
I will test wether the problem still occurs with version 1.84 of
sys_machdep.c and let you know.
Yup, reverting to 1.84 unbreaks this for me. Looking at the changes
made it appears to me
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Thorsten Greiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-01 23:47]:
I will test wether the problem still occurs with version 1.84 of
sys_machdep.c and let you know.
Yup, reverting to 1.84 unbreaks this
* Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-02 00:06]:
I think the bug was in the old code allowing this to
happen...
Well, than someone should tell that to NVidia. Their driver is
closed source and comes without user servicable parts.
Regards
-Thorsten
--
There are 10 kinds of
On 2003-08-02 00:20 +0200, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-02 00:06]:
I think the bug was in the old code allowing this to
happen...
Well, than someone should tell that to NVidia. Their driver is
closed source and comes without user servicable parts.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Thorsten Greiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-01 23:47]:
I will test wether the problem still occurs with version 1.84 of
sys_machdep.c and let
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Thorsten Greiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-01 23:47]:
I will test wether the problem still occurs with version 1.84 of
sys_machdep.c and let you
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Munish Chopra wrote:
On 2003-08-02 00:20 +0200, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-02 00:06]:
I think the bug was in the old code allowing this to
happen...
Well, than someone should tell that to NVidia. Their driver is
closed
On Saturday 02 August 2003 06:24, Munish Chopra wrote:
On 2003-08-02 00:20 +0200, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-02 00:06]:
I think the bug was in the old code allowing this to
happen...
Well, than someone should tell that to NVidia. Their driver
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, David Xu wrote:
On Saturday 02 August 2003 06:24, Munish Chopra wrote:
On 2003-08-02 00:20 +0200, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-02 00:06]:
I think the bug was in the old code allowing this to
happen...
Well, than
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:51:33PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
LUCODE_SEL is used by kernel to load _ucodesel to user %cs
LUDATA_SEL is used by kernel to load _udatasel to user %ds, %es, %fs, %gs.
I didn't check other ABIs, but setting to a fixed location of LDT in userland
is also a bad
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, David Xu wrote:
On Saturday 02 August 2003 06:24, Munish Chopra wrote:
On 2003-08-02 00:20 +0200, Thorsten Greiner wrote:
* Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-02 00:06]:
I think the bug was in the old code allowing this to
happen...
Well, than
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Perhaps we need to rethink the interface and disallow specification
of any ldt; only allow dynamic. We would need a different method of
setting an array of them, though.
I think that for now we can allow anything over 6 because we are not a
BSDI
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:51:33PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
LUCODE_SEL is used by kernel to load _ucodesel to user %cs
LUDATA_SEL is used by kernel to load _udatasel to user %ds, %es, %fs, %gs.
I didn't check other ABIs, but setting to a
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Perhaps we need to rethink the interface and disallow specification
of any ldt; only allow dynamic. We would need a different method of
setting an array of them, though.
I think that for now
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:51:33PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
LUCODE_SEL is used by kernel to load _ucodesel to user %cs
LUDATA_SEL is used by kernel to load _udatasel to user %ds, %es, %fs,
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Perhaps we need to rethink the interface and disallow specification
of any ldt; only allow dynamic. We would need a different method of
setting an array of them, though.
I think that for now we
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
That's what I was worried about. Once an application or
library is written to use specific LDTs, you never know
how it will be affected by the use of threading libraries
(or other libraries using
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
I can see the need to keep the old behavoir for compatibility's
sake.
How about we complain loudly on the console when it's done..
(for the first few times)
(with info on how to do it right)
static int complained = 6;
if
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:18:11PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:51:33PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
LUCODE_SEL is used by kernel to load _ucodesel to user %cs
LUDATA_SEL is used by kernel to load _udatasel to
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
Having a way to disallow using the static allocation should be easy
if we use compiler magic to test that the LDT entry is constant and
0. If it is, all is ok (assuming that I'm not mistaken that we use a
0 entry to indicate dynamic allocation --
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
How about we complain loudly on the console when it's done..
(for the first few times)
(with info on how to do it right)
And make a new interface, changing the prototype in the
header file, so
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:18:11PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:51:33PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Perhaps we need to rethink the interface and disallow
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
OpenGL is the example that I was thinking about.
Having a way to disallow using the static allocation should be easy
if we use compiler magic to test that the LDT entry is constant and
0. If it is,
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
Here's my first patch..
I'd suggest this (along with man page change) to go in first
for a while before we break people's code.
cvs server: Diffing .
Index: sys_machdep.c
===
RCS
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
Here's my first patch..
I'd suggest this (along with man page change) to go in first
for a while before we break people's code.
cvs server: Diffing .
Index: sys_machdep.c
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
Looks OK, but if we are doing a dynamic allocation, it might be
better to start at NLDT just to avoid the known problem of someone
using 6... Just a thought.
sure.. (though we don't know how many they use we just saw the first
one
36 matches
Mail list logo
