http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c1 --- Comment #1 from Leonardo Chiquitto 2010-05-11 21:57:58 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=361512) --> (http://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=361512) vmmouse_detect.core -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c3 Stefan Dirsch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO InfoProvider| |lchiquitto@novell.com --- Comment #3 from Stefan Dirsch 2010-05-12 07:54:30 UTC --- But the vmmouse driver is running? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c5 --- Comment #5 from Stefan Dirsch 2010-05-12 14:31:41 UTC --- Look for vmmouse in /var/log/Xorg.0.log (in the guest system). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c7 Stefan Dirsch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #7 from Stefan Dirsch 2010-05-13 08:24:59 UTC --- The segfaulted is expected and handled accordingly. xf86-input-vmmouse/tools/vmmouse_detect.c: [...] void segvCB(int sig) { #if defined HAVE_XORG_SERVER_1_1_0 exit(1); #endif } int main(void) { /* * If the vmmouse test is not run in a VMware virtual machine, it * will segfault instead of successfully accessing the port. */ signal(SIGSEGV, segvCB); [...] -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c9 Andreas Jaeger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | --- Comment #9 from Andreas Jaeger 2010-06-01 07:52:47 UTC --- It should either not segfault or it should not be run by default. Currently this is just broken, you get core dumps or segfaults at every system start. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c11 --- Comment #11 from Leonardo Chiquitto 2010-06-01 12:10:19 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=366092) --> (http://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=366092) suggested patch Although I can't explain why, this patch resolves the problem for me. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c13 --- Comment #13 from Leonardo Chiquitto 2010-06-02 00:26:28 UTC --- Test packages available in: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/leonardocf:/branches:/X11:/X... -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c15 Michel Dänzer changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |REOPENED InfoProvider|daenzer@vmware.com | --- Comment #15 from Michel Dänzer 2010-06-02 08:32:12 UTC --- Philip doesn't have an account here but can be reached at plangdale at vmware dot com. Here's his initial response:

Anyway, the issue here was slightly convoluted. The standard detection mechanism we use has always been to do this port-poke, and if it's not a VM, you get a segfault - and you do need iopl() set to allow that to work. When I published the vmmouse source, I had the iopl() call in there and that was an issue for non-Linux operating systems, but I also observed that it wasn't really necessary because the X server did iopl() itself - not really a surprise. Later on, I added vmmouse_detect to allow the HAL/udev based device detection to work, and those are standalone and so what the X server does is irrelevant.

Now, why isn't this an issue for anyone else? It does the detection correctly on Ubuntu and other distros (and no one cares about the segfault in the failure case). I guess they have funny core handling going on?

Anyway, it seems the right fix is to add the iopl() call in, perhaps only in vmmouse_detect as it's still irrelevant in the X server. It also doesn't matter in the X server now as the driver isn't loaded unless the device is detected.

It also needs to be properly guarded for LINUX. Who knows what's up on BSD or similar.

-- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c17 --- Comment #17 from Andreas Jaeger 2010-06-02 09:46:03 UTC --- Stefan, I do care because during booting of the system, you see the segfault. And that should not happen... -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c19 Andreas Jaeger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO CC| |kasievers@novell.com InfoProvider| |kasievers@novell.com --- Comment #19 from Andreas Jaeger 2010-06-02 10:33:16 UTC --- Perhaps we should just change the udev rule. I tried the following - it gave no error but added the vmmouse: ACTION=="add|change", ENV{ID_INPUT_MOUSE}=="?*", ATTRS{description}=="i8042 AUX port", RUN{fail_event_on_error}="/usr/bin/vmmouse_detect", ENV{ID_INPUT.tags}="vmmouse" Kay, could you help us,, please? See bug #610418 for the message I received during boot Originally it had: PROGRAM="/usr/bin/vmmouse_detect" -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c21 Kay Sievers changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED InfoProvider|kasievers@novell.com | --- Comment #21 from Kay Sievers 2010-06-02 11:24:34 UTC --- Udev reports the raw status bytes, and 0x0b is a segfault. The binary seems broken, when it segfaults. And it event tries to fiddle around with signal handlers to catch a segfault. I have really no idea what this thing tries to do here. :) Right, PROGRAM= should only be used if symlinks need to be named. Otherwise RUN+= should be used, because it runs after all event/device naming processing is done. But note, that you want +=, or you reset all possibly added earlier RUN keys. (It might not make a difference here, now that we have devtmpfs in 11.3, and the kernel has already created the node for us -- this wasn't the case before devtmpfs, and the device was never accessible with PROGRAM=) ATTRS{} should always have a corresponding match on the subsystem the attribute is coming from, like SUBSYSTEMS="serio", otherwise we will unefficiently check all parents in the whole sysfs path for this attribute. (This is more about efficiency, and should not make any other difference.) For ACTION= we usually use !="remove", because stuff should run on any possible event. (That's more a cosmetic thing.) And can we please check DMI data or anything else that tells us that we run in vmware? Or is that useful for other things too? It's usually bad behavior to unconditionally fork binaries to probe something, which is not needed on any common system. It's like we would just load all kernel modules from /lib/modules just to check if they can find a device to drive. :) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c23 --- Comment #23 from Stefan Dirsch 2010-06-02 19:29:55 UTC --- (In reply to comment #22)

...

Leonardo, if you fix the Sig11 on a non-VWware virtual machine, the program behaves the same as in a VWware virtual machine. But the idea was to segfault and then exit(1) instead of exit(0).

I tested this only in a physical machine and the detection seems to work without the SEGV:

# /usr/bin/vmmouse_detect # echo $? 1

You don't see the segfault, because there is a signal handler for SIG11. In that signal handler there is the exit(1) call. This is done by intention. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c25 --- Comment #25 from Kay Sievers 2010-06-02 19:54:34 UTC --- Udev handles programs just fine which don't try to play games they, as it looks like, don't play right. First, this prober must not run on any normal box, it's a waste of time and resources. This like this must not be done, people try hard to get rid of crap to boot fast, and new stuff like this is coming back all the time. And to prevent this warning, it must not return an exit status that says it segfault'ed, but that it exited with a usual exit code. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c27 --- Comment #27 from Kay Sievers 2010-06-02 23:41:42 UTC --- This is a udev trace while vmmouse_detect is called, and it does not look like it exits as expected: [pid 16701] execve("/usr/bin/vmmouse_detect", ["/usr/bin/vmmouse_detect"], [/* 9 vars */]) = 0 .. [pid 16701] munmap(0x7f639faa3000, 97960) = 0 [pid 16701] rt_sigaction(SIGSEGV, {0x400590, [SEGV], SA_RESTORER|SA_RESTART, 0x7f639f570a60}, {SIG_DFL, [], 0}, 8) = 0 [pid 16701] --- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) @ 0 (0) --- Process 16701 detached [pid 16700] read(4, "", 1023) = 0 [pid 16700] close(4) = 0 [pid 16700] wait4(16701, [{WIFSIGNALED(s) && WTERMSIG(s) == SIGSEGV}], 0, NULL) = 16701 -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c29 --- Comment #29 from Stefan Dirsch 2010-06-04 10:34:06 UTC --- Ok. I've just (re)added the iopl(3) patch. I verified that vmmouse_detect exits still with return code 1 on a physical machine. So that change shouldn't hurt. 41093 State:new By:sndirsch When:2010-06-04T12:32:44 submit: X11:XOrg/xorg-x11-driver-input -> openSUSE:Factory Descr: - xf86-input-vmmouse-iopl.diff (reverse applied) * readd iopl(3) call (bnc #604966) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c31 --- Comment #31 from Michel Dänzer 2010-06-04 17:14:37 UTC --- I'm afraid I'm losing track of exactly what information you'd like to get from me. I think it would be good to focus on the immediate problem(s) here and discuss any further possible improvements upstream. Another update from Philip:

I have no objection to putting the iopl() call back in, as long as it's properly guarded for Linux (obviously).

Second, Kay's grumbling about using dmi. I actually had a dmi test in there originally but I removed it because the qemu/kvm people got sulky.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-input-vmmouse/commit/?id=b29b45...

-- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c33 Stefan Dirsch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |agraf@novell.com --- Comment #33 from Stefan Dirsch 2010-06-05 09:09:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #31)

...

Second, Kay's grumbling about using dmi. I actually had a dmi test in there originally but I removed it because the qemu/kvm people got sulky.

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-input-vmmouse/commit/?id=b29b45...

Indeed I remember that qemu/kvm want to make use of vmmouse as well. Maybe agraf has an idea how to detect a vmware/qemu virtual machine in a different way, i.e. by avoiding a segfault. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c35 --- Comment #35 from Stefan Dirsch 2010-06-11 12:41:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #34)

FWIW probing the port is the only reliable method to probe for the vmport. So we _have_ to take the segfault. Btw if intercepting segfaults breaks the boehm garbage collector would break too, no?

Thanks for the input, Alex. I couldn't understand the second sentence though. Could you rephrase it? AFAICS this is becoming a WONTFIX after all. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c37 --- Comment #37 from Leonardo Chiquitto 2010-06-11 12:57:02 UTC ---

AFAICS this is becoming a WONTFIX after all.

Why WONTFIX? For me this is already FIXED (request #41093 was accepted). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604966#c39 --- Comment #39 from Leonardo Chiquitto 2010-06-11 14:38:03 UTC --- Maybe he was not using the fixed package when he reported that bug? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.