Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:41:35 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org> To: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which signal occurs due to a page protection violation? Message-ID: <31986988-9FB7-4EFC-986B-50DB99934E32@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <3458D5B9-860C-4185-9359-1F48FC35B048@brooknet.com.au> References: <3458D5B9-860C-4185-9359-1F48FC35B048@brooknet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 31, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Sam Lawrance wrote: > ElectricFence is failing during its self test on i386 7-current: > > Testing Electric Fence. > After the last test, it should print that the test has PASSED. > EF_PROTECT_BELOW= && EF_PROTECT_FREE= && EF_ALIGNMENT= && ./eftest > Segmentation fault (core dumped) > *** Error code 139 > > The program intentionally overruns and underruns buffers in order > to test the functionality of ElectricFence. > I think it's failing because: > 1) the new jemalloc is actually catching the problem and throwing > SIGSEGV > 2) ElectricFence is being compiled with - > DPAGE_PROTECTION_VIOLATED_SIGNAL=SIGBUS on that platform. I'm not sure about this, but I think the change of which signal occurs is unrelated to jemalloc. I think Kris Kennaway at one point told me that jemalloc broke the efence port, but then later retracted that claim when efence also failed on a machine that was still using phkmalloc. This may be due to a signal delivery bugfix that someone put in, probably in early December 2005. Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?31986988-9FB7-4EFC-986B-50DB99934E32>