Tweak definition of probestack functions #176
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
It looks like the old `__rust_probestack` routine is incompatible with newer linux kernels. My best guess for this is that the kernel's auto-growth logic is failing to trigger, causing what looks like a legitimate segfault to get delivered. My best guess for why *that's* happening is that the faulting address is below `%rsp`, whereas previously all faulting stack addresses were above `%rsp`. The probestack routine does not modify `%rsp` as it's probing the stack, and presumably newer kernels are interpreting this as a legitimate violation. This commit tweaks the probestack routine to instead update `%rsp` incrementally as probing happens. The ABI of the function, however, requires that `%rsp` isn't changed as part of the function so it's restored at the end to the previous value.
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit f9f6bd0 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2017
Tweak definition of probestack functions It looks like the old `__rust_probestack` routine is incompatible with newer linux kernels. My best guess for this is that the kernel's auto-growth logic is failing to trigger, causing what looks like a legitimate segfault to get delivered. My best guess for why *that's* happening is that the faulting address is below `%rsp`, whereas previously all faulting stack addresses were above `%rsp`. The probestack routine does not modify `%rsp` as it's probing the stack, and presumably newer kernels are interpreting this as a legitimate violation. This commit tweaks the probestack routine to instead update `%rsp` incrementally as probing happens. The ABI of the function, however, requires that `%rsp` isn't changed as part of the function so it's restored at the end to the previous value.
|
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 2061072 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2017
Tweak definition of probestack functions It looks like the old `__rust_probestack` routine is incompatible with newer linux kernels. My best guess for this is that the kernel's auto-growth logic is failing to trigger, causing what looks like a legitimate segfault to get delivered. My best guess for why *that's* happening is that the faulting address is below `%rsp`, whereas previously all faulting stack addresses were above `%rsp`. The probestack routine does not modify `%rsp` as it's probing the stack, and presumably newer kernels are interpreting this as a legitimate violation. This commit tweaks the probestack routine to instead update `%rsp` incrementally as probing happens. The ABI of the function, however, requires that `%rsp` isn't changed as part of the function so it's restored at the end to the previous value.
|
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 2bec5cf has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2017
Tweak definition of probestack functions It looks like the old `__rust_probestack` routine is incompatible with newer linux kernels. My best guess for this is that the kernel's auto-growth logic is failing to trigger, causing what looks like a legitimate segfault to get delivered. My best guess for why *that's* happening is that the faulting address is below `%rsp`, whereas previously all faulting stack addresses were above `%rsp`. The probestack routine does not modify `%rsp` as it's probing the stack, and presumably newer kernels are interpreting this as a legitimate violation. This commit tweaks the probestack routine to instead update `%rsp` incrementally as probing happens. The ABI of the function, however, requires that `%rsp` isn't changed as part of the function so it's restored at the end to the previous value.
|
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 787c58f has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2017
Tweak definition of probestack functions It looks like the old `__rust_probestack` routine is incompatible with newer linux kernels. My best guess for this is that the kernel's auto-growth logic is failing to trigger, causing what looks like a legitimate segfault to get delivered. My best guess for why *that's* happening is that the faulting address is below `%rsp`, whereas previously all faulting stack addresses were above `%rsp`. The probestack routine does not modify `%rsp` as it's probing the stack, and presumably newer kernels are interpreting this as a legitimate violation. This commit tweaks the probestack routine to instead update `%rsp` incrementally as probing happens. The ABI of the function, however, requires that `%rsp` isn't changed as part of the function so it's restored at the end to the previous value.
|
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 91eaa85 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2017
Tweak definition of probestack functions It looks like the old `__rust_probestack` routine is incompatible with newer linux kernels. My best guess for this is that the kernel's auto-growth logic is failing to trigger, causing what looks like a legitimate segfault to get delivered. My best guess for why *that's* happening is that the faulting address is below `%rsp`, whereas previously all faulting stack addresses were above `%rsp`. The probestack routine does not modify `%rsp` as it's probing the stack, and presumably newer kernels are interpreting this as a legitimate violation. This commit tweaks the probestack routine to instead update `%rsp` incrementally as probing happens. The ABI of the function, however, requires that `%rsp` isn't changed as part of the function so it's restored at the end to the previous value.
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It looks like the old
__rust_probestackroutine is incompatible with newerlinux kernels. My best guess for this is that the kernel's auto-growth logic is
failing to trigger, causing what looks like a legitimate segfault to get
delivered. My best guess for why that's happening is that the faulting address
is below
%rsp, whereas previously all faulting stack addresses were above%rsp. The probestack routine does not modify%rspas it's probing the stack,and presumably newer kernels are interpreting this as a legitimate violation.
This commit tweaks the probestack routine to instead update
%rspincrementallyas probing happens. The ABI of the function, however, requires that
%rspisn't changed as part of the function so it's restored at the end to the
previous value.