Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:15:46 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Marcin Cieslak <saper@SYSTEM.PL> Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: linuxolator: amd64 Linux Test Project failures Message-ID: <20070103091546.e6vucwvbk0wk8c80@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <459AF873.2060907@SYSTEM.PL> References: <790a9fff0612290911t5ae69715gd2bf0dda0f9228f2@mail.gmail.com> <20061229213509.GA86839@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <790a9fff0612291424g4ecbd088i7846d248851b3e63@mail.gmail.com> <20061230120722.GA36814@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <790a9fff0612301926n1562d560r1f3fff9af4bdb138@mail.gmail.com> <790a9fff0612301955r35b16472r2429fbe3fce78228@mail.gmail.com> <20061231144257.61520dc8@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20061231142412.GA28462@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <790a9fff0612311121l662736e0ud6d3220382af072a@mail.gmail.com> <20070102095547.jv0m82h7bkc4ss04@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070102165317.GA35202@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <459AF873.2060907@SYSTEM.PL>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Marcin Cieslak <saper@SYSTEM.PL> (from Wed, 03 Jan 2007 =20 01:27:31 +0100): > Divacky Roman wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:55:47AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >>> Quoting Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> (from Sun, 31 Dec 2006 =20 >>> 13:21:27 -0600): >>> >>>> That patch to mmap fixes the problems with mmap on amd64, and brings >>>> the failed LTP testcases closer to the i386 failed testcases. >>> Thanks for testing, I try to get time to commit this. >> >> which makes me wonder what is MD on the linux_mmap* code. wouldnt =20 >> it be better >> to move that to some MI file instead? >> >> and there are tons of similar code.. for example linux_pause. how =20 >> is this MD? >> I'd vote for moving that code.. >> >> opinions? > > For example amd64 implements execute protection natively (PROT_EXEC), > while on i386 there is no way to separate this from PROT_READ. Other > platforms (sparc) may have different mmap implementations and we may > require different linux_mmap() behaviour (for example, on i386 > PROT_EXEC silently implies PROT_READ, on amd64 it does not have to be > the case). > > Having said that, we *may* be lucky and end up with identical mmap > emulation for all platforms. But I would prefer to test PROT_EXEC > compatibility first before we do that. Probably we should extend mmap > fingerprinter to test for expected PROT_EXEC behaviour. I want to note that we don't have an amd64 linuxulator... we only have =20 an i386 linuxolator on amd64 ATM. So differences in the default =20 behavior need to be compensated. Bye, Alexander. --=20 We all like praise, but a hike in our pay is the best kind of ways. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070103091546.e6vucwvbk0wk8c80>