From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Steve Work <swork@aventail.com>, Stas Sergeev <stsp@aknet.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Multi-thread corefiles broken since April
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:28:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051231142851.GH3811@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4397D844.8060903@aventail.com>
Hi Steve,
please open a bug at http://bugzilla.kernel.org/ for this issue so that
it doesn't get lost.
@Stas:
It was your patch that broke it, can you look into it?
TIA
Adrian
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:52:52PM -0800, Steve Work wrote:
> Coredumps from programs with more than one thread show garbage
> information for all threads except the primary. The problem was
> introduced with:
>
> http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=5df240826c90afdc7956f55a004ea6b702df9203
>
> on Apr 16 ("fix crash in entry.S restore_all") and is still present in
> current builds.
>
> "kill -SEGV" this program and "info threads" the resulting corefile to
> see the problem:
>
> #include <pthread.h>
> static void* thread_sleep(void* x) { while (1) sleep(30); }
> int main(int c, char** v) {
> const static int tcount = 5;
> pthread_t thr[tcount];
> int i;
> for (i=0; i<tcount; ++i)
> pthread_create(&thr[i], NULL, thread_sleep, NULL);
> while (1)
> sleep(30);
> return 0;
> }
>
> (gdb) info threads
> 7 process 18138 0x00000246 in ?? ()
> 6 process 18139 0x00000246 in ?? ()
> 5 process 18140 0x00000246 in ?? ()
> 4 process 18141 0x00000246 in ?? ()
> 3 process 18142 0x00000246 in ?? ()
> 2 process 18143 0x00000246 in ?? ()
> * 1 process 18137 0xb7e69db6 in nanosleep () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
> (gdb)
>
> All these threads should show a legitimate location (the same spot in
> nanosleep) and do on kernels prior to the commit named above. (Notice
> one too many threads listed here also -- is this a related problem?)
>
> Commenting out this line (in asm/i386/kernel/process.c:copy_thread)
> fixes the corefiles:
>
> childregs = (struct pt_regs *) ((unsigned long) childregs - 8);
>
> but presumably re-introduces the crash the original patch was intended
> to fix. Should this line be conditioned somehow? Or do the corefile
> write routines need to know about this adjusted offset?
>
> Steve Work
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-31 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-08 6:52 Multi-thread corefiles broken since April Steve Work
2005-12-11 0:44 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-31 14:28 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2006-01-01 1:18 ` Stas Sergeev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051231142851.GH3811@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stsp@aknet.ru \
--cc=swork@aventail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.