Re: signal delivery, was Re: reliable reproducer

2023-04-24 Thread Michael Schmitz
Hi Finn, Am 25.04.2023 um 14:32 schrieb Michael Schmitz: Maybe we should try modifying get_sigframe() to increase the gap between the signal and exception frames from 0-1 long words up to 64-65 long words. It turns out that doing so (patch below) does make the problem go away. Was the excepti

Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis

2023-04-24 Thread Michael Schmitz
Hi Andreas, Am 22.04.2023 um 22:12 schrieb Andreas Schwab: On Apr 22 2023, Michael Schmitz wrote: This is the definition from the kernel's include/uapi/asm-generic/ucontext.h: That's not actually used by m68k, it uses arch/m68k/include/asm/ucontext.h, which confusingly isn't an uapi header.

Re: signal delivery, was Re: reliable reproducer

2023-04-24 Thread Michael Schmitz
Hi Finn, Am 25.04.2023 um 13:55 schrieb Finn Thain: On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, Finn Thain wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, Michael Schmitz wrote: As to a cause for the corruption: all the calculations in setup_frame and sys_sigreturn use fsize, but get_sigframe() masks off the result of usp - sizeof(si

Re: signal delivery, was Re: reliable reproducer

2023-04-24 Thread Finn Thain
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, Finn Thain wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > As to a cause for the corruption: all the calculations in setup_frame > > and sys_sigreturn use fsize, but get_sigframe() masks off the result > > of usp - sizeof(sigframe) - fsize to place the entire fra

Re: reliable reproducer, was Re: core dump analysis

2023-04-24 Thread Finn Thain
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > I don't understand these results. If usp was really overwritten, the > > program would have crashed early, no? > > I think we're still at the point where rec() is called recursively, > before any returns. Right. I wasn't thinking. I'll try to co

Re: Question on the m68k Calling Convention (RTD)

2023-04-24 Thread Richard Z
On April 23, 2023 11:15:04 AM UTC, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >Now, the interesting part is the question why the compiler is even trying >to take this codepath since RTD should normally be turned off in the M68k >backend by default as it's the case for GCC. > As you say.. looks like t