Re: Status of build bots?

[Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>]

* Zack Weinberg:

> On 8/22/19 8:55 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Zack Weinberg:
>> 
>>> On 8/22/19 8:43 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> Thanks, found it.  It's the file identity data in l_file_id for the main
>>>> map, yet another difference between kernel loading of the executable and
>>>> late loading after an explicit loader invocation.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, after fixing this, the test case fails for PIE
>>>> executables with the original assert:
>>>>
>>>> Inconsistency detected by ld.so: ../elf/dl-tls.c: 517: _dl_allocate_tls_init: Assertion `listp != NULL' failed!
>>>>
>>>> Thus the fix for bug 16634 was incorrect. 8-(
>>>>
>>>> This failure reproduces out-of-tree, without an explicit loader
>>>> invocation, so it is real.  We just did not have test coverage for this
>>>> case before.
>>>>
>>>> On the positive side, all this work on the test wasn't for nothing.  But
>>>> it means that I cannot get the test to pass on PIE-by-default toolchains
>>>> easily.
>>>
>>> Suggestion: duplicate this test, compile one copy with explicit -pie
>>> and one with explicit -no-pie, and xfail the -pie version.  That
>>> avoids having testing depend on the configuration of the build
>>> toolchain, gets us back to green buildbots quicker, and we can worry
>>> about fixing 16634 properly when someone actually has time to do that.
>> 
>> We have a partner bug report about this, so it's likely I have to fix
>> this properly anyway.
>
> Oh, OK.  I _was_ trying to get you off the hook here since you seem like
> you might be overcommitted, but a proper fix would of course be better.
>
> I still think it would be a good idea to duplicate the test, compile one
> copy with explicit -pie, and one copy with explicit -no-pie, to remove
> the dependency on build toolchain configuration.

It's still a good suggestion.  I've posted both fixes now, and the fix
for bug 24930 is very difficult to review, so maybe we'll have to use
the stopgap measure.

Thanks,
Florian