syscall clock_nanosleep and posix_fadvise works wrongly. These two bugs were reported by Fujitsu. The patch was attached
Created attachment 364537 [details] patch for ia-32el v7
The patch to fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528595 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528592
*** Bug 528595 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 528592 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Event posted on 12-09-2009 01:35pm JST by moshiro Following is from Fujitsu regarding the proposed patch: --- > Intel reports that they have fixed the clock_nanosleep() and fadvise64() syscall bugs. They created a new Bugzilla entry to track the patch: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528590 We checked the patch attached at Bug #528590. It fixes fadvise64() but does _not_ fix fadvise64_64(). We are afraid Intel forgot fadvise64_64(). --- Could you please verify it and reply to this comment? Best Regards, M Oshiro This event sent from IssueTracker by moshiro issue 346929
Created attachment 377642 [details] patch to fix fadvise64_64
The patch to fix fadvise64_64 was uploaded. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, Xiaolan
Oshiro-san, can you attach testcases for this two bugs so we can test fixes in house, please? From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528595 it seems that one of the test cases (fadvise64_64()) might sit in IssueTracker.
Michal, I attached the fadvise reproducer to the bug 528595. I'm leaving the needinfo in, since we still need the test case for nanosleep.
Created attachment 386518 [details] reproducer for nanosleep This is a reproducer for nanosleep.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0250.html