From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [89.208.246.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37A5D1B5B2; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 12:58:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=89.208.246.23 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706273912; cv=none; b=sUvWX+PHReL8/gUKZ1kAKxlnkf4y+EWCatS73SxmjF1UeDa7X+DA29USWR9KYon3KYIp1WPf3XeCet+xUBpvGiFhR5AF2ZOadzFfwR0qh4m+kfwrpcednxgGRRdRGn/vc3AnnYdy9d2yvIAXUbCiaM3yUy0AuO8g6Bn0g70+I8o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706273912; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eiX/XU3X7izRhpQ8i5uryQdr0UqEctOorWGygOsy5UI=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=HEGcu9gMIVkmycLRZ60Zg+7XovAThmg/vT91L3eG8F9NohFLsNobxG77rmziOQ3xkU6DkND/QOM7+eVSPuktouV5ccV3JI+epdtx50AYik1bc6kfhSE+2LO/G2WtqEp3oS5OGeQLLUHtr+CILmXAm2l7+swcFE7G0nePcu6Mi/I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=xry111.site header.i=@xry111.site header.b=D4WfYUJx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=89.208.246.23 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=xry111.site header.i=@xry111.site header.b="D4WfYUJx" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=xry111.site; s=default; t=1706273902; bh=eiX/XU3X7izRhpQ8i5uryQdr0UqEctOorWGygOsy5UI=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=D4WfYUJxkj8nZVD4yhBt2yM509Q7H7i3L4lt2HkzVsFXGjr7Ym6NyVpBpxWbUIzUc Lf9+rphGsCNs2TLwLbd4L9qrK9iYA/ywuvShsS1ljItoMjcaRslcj6h6v0SVE4i3AL Ne8o4mxQzY0WmlS1J9gC3nuoiVBONKUzUufqgg0I= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:683e::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C67F6690B; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 07:58:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1e1ec730efc58f17ecf008a4600321e3d200ebda.camel@xry111.site> Subject: Re: Strange EFAULT on mips64el returned by syscall when another thread is forking From: Xi Ruoyao To: Jiaxun Yang , "linux-mips@vger.kernel.org" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Bogendoerfer , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:58:16 +0800 In-Reply-To: <4b715c9f-6a9e-4496-8810-670080cb715a@app.fastmail.com> References: <75e9fd7b08562ad9b456a5bdaacb7cc220311cc9.camel@xry111.site> <4b715c9f-6a9e-4496-8810-670080cb715a@app.fastmail.com> Autocrypt: addr=xry111@xry111.site; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 12:33 +0000, Jiaxun Yang wrote: >=20 >=20 > =E5=9C=A82024=E5=B9=B41=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=A5=E4=B8=80=E6=9C=88 =E4=B8=8A= =E5=8D=8810:42=EF=BC=8CXi Ruoyao=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > Hi, > >=20 > > When I'm testing Glibc master branch for upcoming 2.39 release, I > > noticed an alarming test failure on mips64el: >=20 > So apparently it should be tracked as a regression. >=20 > #regzbot ^introduced 4bce37a68ff884e821a02a731897a8119e0c37b7 >=20 > Should we revert it for now? I'd say "yes" if we cannot easily patch instruction_pointer() to handle delay slot. Anyway the reversion will be a MIPS-only change. --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University