Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a testcase for copy reloc against protected data

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 03/31/2015 08:26 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:24 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suppose I configure / build with new binutils but a GCC version without
>>>>>>> your patches.  What will the results be?  That the tests don't build /
>>>>>>> run?  That they build / run but fail (best avoided if possible)?  In
>>>>>>> either case, you need clear documentation for architecture maintainers on
>>>>>>> what GCC versions (*not* requiring any uncommitted GCC patches) must be
>>>>>>> used to identify whether architecture-specific changes are needed and to
>>>>>>> test such changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will submit a separate patch to address GCC issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think these tests should go in glibc until:
>>>>
>>>> Which tests were you talking about?  My copy relocation
>>>> tests work with any GCC versions, with and without the fix
>>>> for
>>>>
>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation.  In
>>> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-03/msg00170.html> you
>>> originally sent patches for all three of GCC, binutils, glibc, so giving
>>> the impression there might be dependencies between these patches.  If the
>>> tests work with any GCC version (i.e. fail if the architecture hasn't been
>>> fixed, pass if it has been fixed) then GCC changes shouldn't need to block
>>> them.
>>>
>>
>> To get copy reloc against protected data symbol working, you
>> need to fix glibc, binutils and GCC.  My glibc tests work around
>> the GCC bug so that you don't need the fixed GCC to build/test
>> glibc.
> 
> I checked in my testcase patch.  I didn't close
> 
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17711
> 
> since only x86 is fixed.  To fix it on a target with copy reloc, you need to
> properly handle ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA like
> x86.  You also need to fix linker if tests fail.
> 

I assume when you say x86 you mean all of the variants of that machine.

Your test fail for me on F21 x86_64 with gcc 4.9.2 and ld 2.24 (Fedora
versions). I haven't looked into this, but hopefully we'll get Fedora--
specific build bots up to help with this kind of testing.

XPASS: conform/ISO11/complex.h/conform
XPASS: conform/ISO11/stdalign.h/conform
XPASS: conform/ISO11/stdnoreturn.h/conform
FAIL: elf/tst-protected1a
FAIL: elf/tst-protected1b
UNRESOLVED: timezone/testdata/UTC
Summary of test results:
      2 FAIL
   2199 PASS
      1 UNRESOLVED
    189 XFAIL
      3 XPASS

[carlos@koi build]$ cat glibc/elf/tst-protected1a.out 
`protected1' in main and moda doesn't have same address
`protected3' in main and moda doesn't have same address
`protected1' in main doesn't have the updated value
`protected1' in moda has the wrong value
`protected3' in main doesn't have the updated value
`protected3' in main doesn't have the updated value
[carlos@koi build]$ cat glibc/elf/tst-protected1b.out 
`protected3' in main and modb doesn't have same address
`protected3' in main doesn't have the updated value

What's wrong?

Cheers,
Carlos.