Re: Not running into expected SIGSEGV

[Samuel Thibault]

Justus Winter, on Tue 23 Feb 2016 23:43:58 +0100, wrote:
> Quoting Samuel Thibault (2016-02-23 23:27:26)
> > Justus Winter, on Tue 23 Feb 2016 23:24:08 +0100, wrote:
> > > Quoting Samuel Thibault (2016-02-23 23:04:25)
> > > > Samuel Thibault, on Tue 23 Feb 2016 22:22:02 +0100, wrote:
> > > > > Thomas Schwinge, on Tue 23 Feb 2016 12:02:36 +0100, wrote:
> > > > > > > I couldn't figure out any pattern from looking at the diffs 
> > > > > > > between the
> > > > > > > respective Hurd packages' sources.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've digged a bit, the difference that matters between -2 and -3
> > > > > is about the protected payload optimization. -2 used to disable it
> > > > > because we had issues with pflocal. -3 fixed the pflocal issue and 
> > > > > thus
> > > > > re-enabled the optimization.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So apparently there is at least another issue with it.
> > > > 
> > > > I have thus disabled it again at least in the Debian package, for now.
> > > 
> > > You should also be able to disable it in the kernel, just ignore
> > > mach_port_set_protected_payload requests by making them return early.
> > 
> > No, that's not the culprit, see the patch detail: this is the case where
> > the kernel didn't record a protected payload, libports then makes the
> > hash lookup, and stores the result so the translator demuxer doesn't do
> > this again.
> 
> Ah, I hadn't seen that patch.  I fixed that issue in master.

Ok, I'll upload that instead.

> > Apparently the translator demuxer does not expect that and does
> > crazy things.
> 
> Is there a problem with a specific translator?

I hadn't checked which, but most probably the issue was the lost "other"
bits.

Samuel