Bug#462112: [ths@networkno.de: Re: Tester with IP27/IP30 needed]
FYI; read the section about MIPS I.
----- Forwarded message from Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> -----
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Subject: Re: Tester with IP27/IP30 needed
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:22:11 +0000
To: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Cc: Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
linux-mips@linux-mips.org, debian-mips@lists.debian.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Kumba wrote:
> Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 03:16:48AM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:08:31PM -0500, Kumba wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
>>>>> no suprise here. As Ralf already noted cache barrier is a restricted
>>>>> instruction, it will always cause a illegal instruction when used
>>>>> in user space. Nevertheless it looks like all IP28 are affected
>>>>> by the simple exploit. Flo built glibc 2.7 with LLSC war workaround
>>>>> and this avoids triggering the hang.
>>>> Ah, didn't know the 'cache' instructions was kernel-mode only.
>>>> Explains why it survived then :)
>>>>
>>>> How does one enable the LLSC war workaround in glibc?
>>> By modifying the code ;-)
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=462112
>>
>> Flo
>
> Interesting. Is there a reason the kernel uses an #ifdef to choose
> between 'bezq' and 'bezql' that's not needed in glibc itself? Or does
> glibc itself lack a mechanism to detect CPU types to single out this
> specific change?
glibc for mips has currently no such mechanism. Note that this change
breaks MIPS I CPUs, so it is not generally applicable.
> And any idea if uClibc will need similar mods?
It needs a similiar change to support R10000 v2.5.
Thiemo
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
Reply to: