From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JvwcV-0002Xe-1c for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2008 08:40:53 -0700 Received: from saraswathi.solana.com ([198.99.130.12]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1JvwcR-0004cK-QZ for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2008 08:40:50 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 11:40:33 -0400 From: Jeff Dike Message-ID: <20080513154033.GA8867@c2.user-mode-linux.org> References: <4821B5FC.40307@vulnscan.org> <20080509154552.GH10169@c2.user-mode-linux.org> <48255FC4.4040805@vulnscan.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48255FC4.4040805@vulnscan.org> Subject: Re: [uml-devel] umls unresponsive & consuming 100% cpu time List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: "Bram Matthys (Syzop)" Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:41:40AM +0200, Bram Matthys (Syzop) wrote: > I also saw this on my console (which does not react either btw), not sure > when it appeared.. at or very short after/before the time setting: > Stub registers - > ~ 0 - 621a > ~ 1 - 13 > ~ 2 - 621a > ~ 3 - 6215 > ~ 4 - 8 > ~ 5 - bfae182c > ~ 6 - 0 > ~ 7 - 7b > ~ 8 - 7b > ~ 9 - 0 > ~ 10 - 0 > ~ 11 - ffffffff > ~ 12 - 1000be > ~ 13 - 73 > ~ 14 - 200246 > ~ 15 - bfae1810 > ~ 16 - 7b > wait_stub_done : failed to wait for SIGTRAP, pid = 26141, n = 26141, errno = > 0, status = 0x1c7f For this one, try this patch: Index: linux-2.6.22/arch/um/os-Linux/skas/process.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.22.orig/arch/um/os-Linux/skas/process.c 2008-04-14 10:44:33.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.6.22/arch/um/os-Linux/skas/process.c 2008-05-13 11:37:35.000000000 -0400 @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ static int ptrace_dump_regs(int pid) * Signals that are OK to receive in the stub - we'll just continue it. * SIGWINCH will happen when UML is inside a detached screen. */ -#define STUB_SIG_MASK (1 << SIGVTALRM) +#define STUB_SIG_MASK ((1 << SIGVTALRM) | (1 << SIGWINCH)) /* Signals that the stub will finish with - anything else is an error */ #define STUB_DONE_MASK (1 << SIGTRAP) I doubt it will fix the time problem. I'm going to chase vincent's problem on the assusmption that you're seeing the same thing. When I figure that out, we'll see how true that is. > The old 2.6.20.1 uml's react fine when setting time backwards, btw (well.. > within reasonable limits) UML got its timekeeping redone as part of the tickless work and I'm still shaking out bugs... Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel