On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 03:50:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I changed the subject. This bug has nothing to do with utrace,
> the kernel fails with or without these changes.
>
> On 11/26, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:40:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 11/25, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > > >
> > > > step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
> > > > /bin/sh: line 5: 24803 Aborted ${dir}$tst
> > > > FAIL: step-fork
> > >
> > > This is expected. Should be fixed by
> > >
> > > ptrace-copy_process-should-disable-stepping.patch
> > >
> > > in -mm tree. (I am attaching this patch below just in case)
> > > I din't mention this patch in this series because this bug
> > > is "ortogonal" to utrace/ptrace.
> >
> > The patch doesn't seem to fix the issue on powerpc:
> >
> > step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
> > /bin/sh: line 5: 17325 Aborted ${dir}$tst
> > FAIL: step-fork
>
> Good to know, thanks again Ananth.
>
> I'll take a look. Since I know nothing about powerpc, I can't
> promise the quick fix ;)
>
> The bug was found by code inspection, but the fix is not trivial
> because it depends on arch/, and it turns out the arch-independent
> fix in
>
> ptrace-copy_process-should-disable-stepping.patch
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits&m=125789789322573
>
> doesn't work.
>
> Ananth, could you please run the test-case from the changelog
> below ? I do not really expect this can help, but just in case.
Right, it doesn't help :-(
GDB shows that the parent is forever struck at wait().
Ananth
