Re: 9.4 beta1 crash on Debian sid/i386

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.4 beta1 crash on Debian sid/i386
Date: 2014-05-18 21:52:32
Message-ID: 20140518215232.GA11150@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-05-18 17:41:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de> writes:
> > Re: Andres Freund 2014-05-18 <20140518091445(dot)GU23662(at)alap3(dot)anarazel(dot)de>
> >> Did you measure how large the stack actually was when you got the
> >> SIGBUS? Should be possible to determine that by computing the offset
> >> using some local stack variable in one of the depeest stack frames.
>
> > Looking at /proc/*/maps, the stack is ffb38000-ffd1e000 = 1944kB for a
> > process that just got SIGBUS. This seems to be in line with
> > stack_base_ptr = 0xffd1c317 and the fcinfo address in
>
> OK, so the problem is that getrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) is lying to us about
> the available stack depth. I'd classify that as a kernel bug. I wonder
> if it's a different manifestation of this issue:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952946

That'd explain why I couldn't reproduce it. And I seme to recall some
messages about the hardening stuff in debian accidentally being lost
some time ago. So if that got re-introduced into 9.4... The CFLAGS
certainly indicate that -pie is getting used.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-05-18 21:56:48 Re: 9.4 beta1 crash on Debian sid/i386
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-05-18 21:41:17 Re: 9.4 beta1 crash on Debian sid/i386