From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:51:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:33209 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20038482AbWLBCvR (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:51:17 +0000 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kB22O6hD029741; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:24:06 GMT Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id kB22O4su029740; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:24:04 GMT Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:24:04 +0000 From: Ralf Baechle To: Kaz Kylheku Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: N32 shmat problem identified! Kernel fix needed. Message-ID: <20061202022404.GA28637@linux-mips.org> References: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D4B5F5F@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D4B5F5F@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 13322 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 04:33:16PM -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > The function named sys32_shmat has no reason to exist, and is broken. It > assumes that user space has passed a pointer to the location where the > resulting pointer should be stored. But that is not the shmat API, and > glibc will pass no such parameter. So a null dereference results, > leading to EFAULT. > > The fix is to remove this function from the code base and quite simply > to wire the normal sys_shmat into the n32 syscall table. Since there is > in fact no pointer-to-pointer argument, this function doesn't have a 32 > bit compatibility issues. That's fixed since two months. Ralf