On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:33 PM Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> wrote: > Sergey Bugaev, le jeu. 20 avril 2023 15:27:15 +0300, a ecrit: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:08 PM Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> > > wrote: > > > > > See 56010b73e81e2cb1082e418699f98353598fe671 and its __mig_memcpy. > > > > > > > > Interesting; but that one's dealing with the SHARED case, isn't it? > > > > > > Yes but I guess it fixed the static case too? > > > > For the shared case, yes, lib*user will now reference > > __mig_memcpy from libc.so, and that one needs a simple relocation > > without ifunc. > > Ah, I missed the part that said that __mig_memcpy just calls the > (ifunc-) memcpy. > > I guess I shouldn't be replying when I don't actually have time to check > all ins and outs of what I'm talking about :)
It's alright, I'm guilty of that too :) And also indeed I have just spent hours debugging this, so I have some mental model of what's going on (whether a correct one is another question...), but if you haven't looked into this for some time, you wouldn't. > > What would be a correct value then, 1 << 48? > > I don't know by heart, but something like that yes. Well that value is making gnumach crash before the task even runs :( XNU has 0x7ffffffff000, which is still larger than 0x200000000000, so I'm going to try that one. Though they probably mean 0x800000000000 and have just left a single page of address space for the commpage. Sergey
