Kernel 2.6.9 - Issue Found

[Pouech Eric DMI AEI CAEN]

from what I read from Linus / Roland discussion on this topic (this night) on lkml, Linus only patched 1 out of 3 places which need to be patched (according to Roland). But I don't know yet if Linus will finish the job or not :-(
IMO, what Linus proposes heads into the right direction (don't single step in signal handler if the process itself has set the TF flag, but do if the debugger has done it), however I cannot tell whether it's going to fix all issues.

A+


> Message du 16/11/04 02:15
> De : "Jesse Allen" 
> A : wine-devel at winehq.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: Kernel 2.6.9 - Issue Found
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:45:00PM -0700, Jesse Allen wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 06:11:33PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > > I couldn't find the patch at either of the two
> > > links Jesse posted, but I did see something similar here:
> > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=bk-commits-head&m=110048429304053&w=2
> > 
> > That's a brand new patch today.
> > 
> > "x86: only single-step into signal handlers if the tracer asked for it."
> > 
> > Looks like Linus may have been alerted by the problem and made this patch just 
> > in time for 2.6.10-rc2. Is this the "switch-off" we need?
> > 
> > I'll be testing it shortly.
> > 
> 
> It doesn't seem to fix the copy protection problem. So I'm wondering a few 
> things. Does wine need to be patched? This new patch seems to be related to 
> a chunk of code added in patch #2 mentioned in the original posting. I've 
> tried 2.6.10-rc2 with patch #1 reversed and patch 1+3 reversed. No difference
> this time.
> 
> Any idea will help.
> 
> Jesse
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20041116/8ac0e12e/attachment.htm