[Top] [All Lists]

Re: (Re-Send) shmctl() returns corrupt value on pb1000.

Subject: Re: (Re-Send) shmctl() returns corrupt value on pb1000.
From: Takeshi AIHANA <>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 19:09:18 +0900
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: MontaVista Software Japan
References: <1022757017.1045.47.camel@aihana> <> <1022763778.1046.71.camel@aihana> <>
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.8.1 (Something) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (Unebigoryòmae) APEL/10.3 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 14) (Cuyahoga Valley) (i386-redhat-linux)

At Fri, 31 May 2002 11:28:47 +0900 (JST),
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> takeshi_aihana> Is there any inconsistents on those conditions?
> AFAIK, Yes.  For example, look struct ipc_perm in bits/ipc.h and
> struct ipc64_perm in asm-mips/ipcbuf.h (not struct ipc_perm in
> linux/ipc.h which is obsolete).

I did to check both bits/shm.h (glibc-2.2.3), bits/shm.h (glibc-2.2.4) and 
for calling shmctl();
There are any differences 'struct shmid_ds' between glibc-2.2.3 and 2.2.4 that 
I saw.
However, I do not think those diffs are caused this problem.
Because the 'shm_segsz` which a member of this will be allocated on same 
location even if the follows members
behind 'shm_segsz' are changed; i.e. it will have same value as 'shm_segsz' on 
both different structure.
Is this right?

> If you can.  Please do not forget rebuilding all applications which
> including these headers.  If you want to stay in 2.2.3, you will have
> to modify your kernel headers according to the libc headers.

I understood. It might to solve this problem as the most simple way.

Thank you for your advice.

(TAKESHI - MontaVista Software)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>