stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1066 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
Date Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:19:49 GMT
On 9/23/12 5:23 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms> wrote:
>
>> Stefan, I stumbled upon this: http://tinyurl.com/ceet6ec and this:
>> http://tinyurl.com/c4h9mgl
>
> The first URL is Fujitsu. It doesn't mention anything about the
> side-effects of KU-137111. It's just a description on how to apply
> kernel patches.

Hold on. If you go in the bottom half of that page you will see:

*2) The following shows an example of programming that causes the
           above problem.

         <In the case where the problem occurs>
           ----------------------------------------------------------------
           int       *ip;
           mutex_t   *mp;
           ip = (int *) malloc(sizeof (int) + sizeof (mutex_t));
           mp = (mutex_t *) (ip + 1);
                              /* The address is used with a modification */
           ----------------------------------------------------------------

         <In the case where the problem does not occur -1>
           ----------------------------------------------------------------
           mutex_t   mp;                          /* Obtained statically */
           ----------------------------------------------------------------

         <In the case where the problem does not occur -2>
           ----------------------------------------------------------------
           mutex_t   *mp;
           mp = (mutex_t *) malloc(sizeof (mutex_t));
                        /* The address is used without any modifications */
           ----------------------------------------------------------------

>
> What I can share with you is:
>
> 1. The SPARC alignment patches as I have submitted them here are
> present in the official production stdcxx packages released with
> Solaris 10 and Solaris 11.
>
> 2. These patches did not make into the Solaris source code tree and a
> Solaris product without extensive internal code review. Not to mention
> testing.

I am not saying I don't believe you. But you have to give us something more than 
"trust me, I know what I'm doing". You have to admit that the patch looks funny, 
e.g., in that it does not follow the published documentation for Solaris Studio 
12.3.

Thanks,
Liviu

Mime
View raw message