This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 03:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Linker bug.  You need linker from master or 2.25 branch.
>
> Please mention this in the build and test issues for 2.22:
>
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.22#Build_and_test_issues
>

Done.

-- 
H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]