Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:02:38 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Milo Hyson <milo@cyberlifelabs.com> Cc: FreeBSD Emulation List <freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Working on IBM JDK fix Message-ID: <20030228155643.H21112-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <3E5E5F56.90605@cyberlifelabs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Milo Hyson wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > % /* allocate user ldt */
> > % if (!pldt || largest_ld >= pldt->ldt_len) {
> > % struct proc_ldt *new_ldt = user_ldt_alloc(mdp, largest_ld);
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > But we use `largest_ld' for the size of the table here.
> >
> > Try adding 1 here.
>
> No, that doesn't solve the problem. I'm still seeing the same traps.
> That's definitely a bug that should be fixed though.
>
> According to the Linux kernel references on modify_ldt(), function codes
> 0x01 and 0x11 are both used to write a single LDT entry. The only
> difference between them is that 0x11 allows control of the
> useable/available bit. Both return either 0 on success or -1 on error.
> They never return anything but those two values. Looking at the Linux
> kernel source confirms this. I'm wondering if the 8190 being returned by
> FreeBSD is confusing the JDK into thinking the call failed when in fact
> it succeeded.
That is possible. I'm not sure where modify_ldt() is implemented for
FreeBSD, but i386_set_ldt() returns the first selector set (not 0) on
success.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030228155643.H21112-100000>