From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 15 07:20:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3100F16A41C for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:20:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0319143D53 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:20:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6F7K6S0081363 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:20:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j6F7K6qX081362; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:20:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:20:06 GMT Message-Id: <200507150720.j6F7K6qX081362@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Sven Berkvens-Matthijsse Cc: Subject: Re: kern/83375: Fatal trap 12 cloning a pty X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Sven Berkvens-Matthijsse List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:20:07 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/83375; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sven Berkvens-Matthijsse To: bug-followup@freebsd.org Cc: marcolz@stack.nl Subject: Re: kern/83375: Fatal trap 12 cloning a pty Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:16:53 +0200 Following up on this: the t_line member of the struct tty that the ttyld_modem() macro is looking at (which should be an integer from 0 upto but not including nlinesw, which is 9 on this system), is actually an address of some sort. The t_line integer's value is 0xc5f0cd48. I have no idea how this could ever get there, I can't find anything in the kernel code that could cause this, at least, not by setting t_line itself. Perhaps the tty structure is corrupted by a function that is not supposed to do anything with t_line at all. -- Sven