https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423963
--- Comment #22 from Christoph Cullmann <cullm...@kde.org> --- (In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #21) > Hmm.. It doesn't seem to make a huge amount of sense. Both versions of Qt > are using PIDFD but with 6.1 the FD we get from the kernel seems to be a > silly number that is not a valid file descriptor triggering everything which > follows. > > The final failure is because we set SfYieldAfter in the flags even though we > have syntheised an EMFILE error for the invalid descriptor. The actual > kernel clone has happened though so it's not clear that we can synthesise an > error in POST like that though - it's all a bit tricky. > > None of that explains the FD we are getting from the kernel though, or the > difference between Qt versions. I wonder if the kernel is not writing it at > all and the value we are seeing is what happened to be in that location > before the call. > > Can you get an strace of both versions running under valgrind so we can see > how the kernel level clones compare? I will provide that. Thanks that you take your time into looking into this at all. I really hope I didn't just screw up the Qt compile we have, thought without valgrind, it seems to work properly with all our regression tests. Will attach the 2 logs for 6.0 and 6.1 with valgrind 3.17 vanilla. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
