* [uml-devel] [Bug nptl/651] The getpid() cache (and TLS) is not invalidated after clone() calls
[not found] <20050112011749.651.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
@ 2005-01-12 1:21 ` blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it
2005-01-12 1:45 ` drepper at redhat dot com
2005-01-12 2:09 ` blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it
2 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it @ 2005-01-12 1:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: user-mode-linux-devel
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |user-mode-linux-devel at
| |lists dot sourceforge dot
| |net
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=651
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* [uml-devel] [Bug nptl/651] The getpid() cache (and TLS) is not invalidated after clone() calls
[not found] <20050112011749.651.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
2005-01-12 1:21 ` [uml-devel] [Bug nptl/651] The getpid() cache (and TLS) is not invalidated after clone() calls blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it
@ 2005-01-12 1:45 ` drepper at redhat dot com
2005-01-12 2:09 ` blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it
2 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: drepper at redhat dot com @ 2005-01-12 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: user-mode-linux-devel
------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com 2005-01-12 01:45 -------
These confused ramblings are not helping at all. Is it so hard to write
I have this test program. When I run it like this I expect this output.
And reading "This is tested with any recent glibc" makes me want to smack
somebody. This problem has long been fixed so nobody with a recent glibc can
have experienced it.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=651
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* [uml-devel] [Bug nptl/651] The getpid() cache (and TLS) is not invalidated after clone() calls
[not found] <20050112011749.651.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
2005-01-12 1:21 ` [uml-devel] [Bug nptl/651] The getpid() cache (and TLS) is not invalidated after clone() calls blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it
2005-01-12 1:45 ` drepper at redhat dot com
@ 2005-01-12 2:09 ` blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it
2 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it @ 2005-01-12 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: user-mode-linux-devel
------- Additional Comments From blaisorblade_spam at yahoo dot it 2005-01-12 02:09 -------
I'll test it against an updated glibc if and when I'll have time, but anyway I
have no reason to doubt on you.
And sorry a lot... I didn't want to "rumble", just to be complete. Detailed
excuses follow, feel free to skip them.
1) I feared that fixing it looked too ugly and too controversial (for the
complexity added to a syscall wrapper, like I said)...
I didn't actually verify that it was on the latest glibc... I tested a 2.3.4
snapshot (20040808) which is the one I run.
but I cc'ed you a patch for UML talking about it some time ago and got no
answer.
(I tested it against glibc-2.3.4.20040808 (a glibc snapshot used in Gentoo,
which is the latest "stable" glibc in Gentoo). And I didn't find any bug report
about this *here*, so I thought it wasn't fixed).
--
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=651
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread