Bug 528590 - IA-32 EL's patch to fix nanosleep and fadvise bug
Summary: IA-32 EL's patch to fix nanosleep and fadvise bug
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ia32el
Version: 5.5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: rc
: 5.5
Assignee: Petr Machata
QA Contact: BaseOS QE
: 528592 528595 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 529716 533941
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2009-10-13 01:42 UTC by Xiaolan
Modified: 2018-10-27 11:43 UTC (History)
14 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-03-30 08:27:09 UTC
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
patch for ia-32el v7 (4.28 KB, application/octet-stream)
2009-10-13 01:44 UTC, Xiaolan
no flags Details
patch to fix fadvise64_64 (3.91 KB, application/octet-stream)
2009-12-11 01:46 UTC, Xiaolan
no flags Details
reproducer for nanosleep (2.67 KB, text/x-csrc)
2010-01-25 00:59 UTC, Moritoshi Oshiro
no flags Details

System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2010:0250 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE ia32el bug fix update 2010-03-29 12:44:49 UTC

Description Xiaolan 2009-10-13 01:42:53 UTC
syscall clock_nanosleep and posix_fadvise works wrongly. 

These two bugs were reported by Fujitsu.

The patch was attached

Comment 1 Xiaolan 2009-10-13 01:44:11 UTC
Created attachment 364537 [details]
patch for ia-32el v7

Comment 4 Petr Machata 2009-12-01 14:54:11 UTC
*** Bug 528595 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Petr Machata 2009-12-01 14:54:27 UTC
*** Bug 528592 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7 Issue Tracker 2009-12-09 04:35:43 UTC
Event posted on 12-09-2009 01:35pm JST by moshiro@redhat.com

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@redhat.com 
 issue 346929

Comment 8 Xiaolan 2009-12-11 01:46:45 UTC
Created attachment 377642 [details]
patch to fix fadvise64_64

Comment 9 Xiaolan 2009-12-11 01:48:47 UTC
The patch to fix fadvise64_64 was uploaded. Sorry for the inconvenience.


Comment 11 Michal Nowak 2010-01-22 10:20:05 UTC

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.

Comment 12 Petr Machata 2010-01-22 11:10:42 UTC
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.

Comment 13 Moritoshi Oshiro 2010-01-25 00:59:54 UTC
Created attachment 386518 [details]
reproducer for nanosleep

This is a reproducer for nanosleep.

Comment 16 errata-xmlrpc 2010-03-30 08:27:09 UTC
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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.