Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:39:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:39:22 -0500 Received: from quark.didntduck.org ([216.43.55.190]:43532 "EHLO quark.didntduck.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:39:14 -0500 Message-ID: <3BEB0986.BA2D5DFD@didntduck.org> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 17:39:02 -0500 From: Brian Gerst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Chandler CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bug Report: Dereferencing a bad pointer In-Reply-To: <3BEAFFC6.EAC56763@grammatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Chandler wrote: > > I get a seg fault on both 2.2 and 2.4 kernels by running the following > one-line C program: > int main() { int k = (int *)0x0; } > > Debugging the offender, > int main() { int k = (int *)0xc0000000; } > is not very informative: single-stepping over the sole command just > hangs, and you have to press Control-C to interrupt gdb, at which point > you can single-step right into the same problem again. > > When the program hangs, 'top' says that the CPU is fully utilized and > the system is spending 80% of its time in the kernel and 20% in the > offending process. > > Have you not been able to duplicate it on a 2.4 kernel on x86? If not, > please tell me which 2.4 kernel correctly seg faults. How about address 0xc0001000? I have been unable to reproduce this on a PII running 2.4.9, and an Athlon running 2.4.14. -- Brian Gerst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/