Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> > no, it's not fakeroot, it's make segfaulting ... > [...] > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > > [Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 16911)] > > 0x4091fd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () from > > /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > (gdb) bt > > #0 0x4091fd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () > >from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > #1 0x4091b424 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > #2 0x405cc950 in sigaction () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #3 0x405cc748 in ssignal () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #4 0x0001d690 in main () > > (gdb) > > Confirmed. We are passing a function pointer with a value of -2 into > __cffc, which should not happen... I've posted a candidate gcc fix here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-08/msg00923.html As I mentioned earlier today to Randolph, I think there should possibly be a pa specific implementation of sigaction that avoids doing function pointer canonicalization. Dave -- J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
(I trimmed the cc list a bit) Dave, Could this actually be a gcc problem? Take a look at this: (gdb) bt #0 0x406dbd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () from /usr/lib/debug/libpthread.so.0 #1 0x406d7424 in __pthread_sigaction (sig=18, act=0xc0241ec8, oact=0xc0241f50) at signals.c:106 #2 0x4035f950 in *__GI___sigaction (sig=, act=, oact=) at ../linuxthreads/sysdeps/pthread/sigaction.c:42 #3 0x4035f748 in __bsd_signal (sig=18, [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 0x42410 <__gmon_start__+92828>) at signal.c:47 #4 0x0001d690 in main () (gdb) frame 1 #1 0x406d7424 in __pthread_sigaction (sig=18, act=0xc0241ec8, oact=0xc0241f50) at signals.c:106 106 if (old == SIG_IGN || old == SIG_DFL || old == SIG_ERR) (gdb) print &old Address requested for identifier "old" which is in register $r11 (gdb) print /x $r11 $6 = 0x0 (gdb) print /x $pc $7 = 0x406d7424 (gdb) disassemble $pc-16 $pc+4 Dump of assembler code from 0x406d7414 to 0x406d7428: 0x406d7414 <__pthread_sigaction+252>: stw r20,-138(,sp) 0x406d7418 <__pthread_sigaction+256>: copy r19,r4 0x406d741c <__pthread_sigaction+260>: b,l 0x406dbcd8 <__canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare>,rp 0x406d7420 <__pthread_sigaction+264>: ldo -2(r11),r26 0x406d7424 <__pthread_sigaction+268>: copy r4,r19 End of assembler dump. (gdb) Why is it doing that "ldo -2(r11),r26" ? I think this version of glibc is built with gcc-4.0 randolph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> I would have thought that old (r11) would have just been copied to > r26. Could you send preprocessed source and compilation details? This is now filed as http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23369 I have reassigned the fakeroot bug to gcc-4.0 and marked it up accordingly. randolph -- Randolph Chung Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports http://www.tausq.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> The handling of function pointers in 4.0 branch was broken prior to > this change: > > 2005-07-02 Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * tree-ssa-dom.c (find_equivalent_equality_comparison): Do not > a eliminate type conversion which feeds an equality comparison > if the original type or either operand in the comparison is a > function pointer. > > This change is in 4.0.1. > Latest gcc-4.0 debian/changelog said: gcc-4.0 (4.0.1-4) unstable; urgency=low * Enable the biarch compiler for powerpc (closes: #268023). * Update to CVS 20050806, taken from the gcc-4_0-branch. ... but I don't know how to determine which compiler was used to build glibc. Was it still possible to rebuild libc6 with gcc-3.3.5? Thanks, Joel --- A free anti-spam and anti-virus filter on all Scarlet mailboxes More info on http://www.scarlet.be/
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> #1 0x406d7424 in __pthread_sigaction (sig=18, act=0xc0241ec8, > oact=0xc0241f50) > at signals.c:106 > 106 if (old == SIG_IGN || old == SIG_DFL || old == SIG_ERR) > (gdb) print &old > Address requested for identifier "old" which is in register $r11 > (gdb) print /x $r11 > $6 = 0x0 > (gdb) print /x $pc > $7 = 0x406d7424 > (gdb) disassemble $pc-16 $pc+4 > Dump of assembler code from 0x406d7414 to 0x406d7428: > 0x406d7414 <__pthread_sigaction+252>: stw r20,-138(,sp) > 0x406d7418 <__pthread_sigaction+256>: copy r19,r4 > 0x406d741c <__pthread_sigaction+260>: b,l 0x406dbcd8 > <__canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare>,rp > 0x406d7420 <__pthread_sigaction+264>: ldo -2(r11),r26 > 0x406d7424 <__pthread_sigaction+268>: copy r4,r19 > End of assembler dump. > (gdb) > > Why is it doing that "ldo -2(r11),r26" ? I would have thought that old (r11) would have just been copied to r26. Could you send preprocessed source and compilation details? The handling of function pointers in 4.0 branch was broken prior to this change: 2005-07-02 Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * tree-ssa-dom.c (find_equivalent_equality_comparison): Do not a eliminate type conversion which feeds an equality comparison if the original type or either operand in the comparison is a function pointer. This change is in 4.0.1. Dave -- J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> > no, it's not fakeroot, it's make segfaulting ... > [...] > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > > [Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 16911)] > > 0x4091fd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () from > > /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > (gdb) bt > > #0 0x4091fd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () > >from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > #1 0x4091b424 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > #2 0x405cc950 in sigaction () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #3 0x405cc748 in ssignal () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #4 0x0001d690 in main () > > (gdb) GSIGNAL(3) Linux Programmer's ManualGSIGNAL(3) NAME gsignal, ssignal - software signal facility SYNOPSIS #include typedef void (*sighandler_t)(int); int gsignal(signum); sighandler_t ssignal(int signum, sighandler_t action); DESCRIPTION Don't use these functions under Linux. Due to a historical mistake, under Linux these functions are aliases for raise() and signal(), respectively. ... CONFORMING TO SVID2, XPG2. These functions are available under AIX, DG-UX, HPUX, SCO, Solaris, Tru64. They are called obsolete under most of these sys- tems, and are broken under Linux libc and glibc. Some systems also have gsignal_r() and ssignal_r(). I'm guessing that ssignal is called with action -2. I have no idea what that's supposed to do. __cffc accepts small positive function pointer addresses and -1 as special. It doesn't attempt to canonicalize them. Dave -- J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> Well, sarge also shipped as 2.6-only, for hppa; so if the answer is that > this problem happens to go away when upgrading to 2.6, that's probably > acceptable, since 2.4 kernels will have been unsupported on hppa for a full > stable release by the time etch comes out. It doesn't go away with 2.6. randolph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 11:51:30AM +0200, Joel Soete wrote: > > The buildd in question is currently running a 2.4.26-64 kernel. > Cool (I didn't thought that there was still systems running 2.4) Well, sarge also shipped as 2.6-only, for hppa; so if the answer is that this problem happens to go away when upgrading to 2.6, that's probably acceptable, since 2.4 kernels will have been unsupported on hppa for a full stable release by the time etch comes out. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> > The buildd in question is currently running a 2.4.26-64 kernel. > Cool (I didn't thought that there was still systems running 2.4) > > In fact while simply rebuilding a kernel (as root, without fakeroot), I also > > observe a segfault with 2.6.8 and 2.6.10 (on c110 and d380) but panicing > > 2.6.12 (on the same c110 and d380) as well as 2.6.13-rc6 on d380 and b2k. > > > Fwiw with kernel 2.6.11.12, the rebuild runs fine on this same d380 and b2k. > > Well, there have certainly been various and sundry known kernel issues on > hppa, but this seems wholly unrelated to them. > > > That's confusing me: is there actualy a pb in libc or do we need some > > constraint to install this new libc? > > glibc seems to be the one thing that's changed; running make manually with > a copy of glibc 2.3.2 in the chroot works just fine. > Thanks, Joel --- A free anti-spam and anti-virus filter on all Scarlet mailboxes More info on http://www.scarlet.be/
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 12:49:24PM +0200, Joel Soete wrote: > -- Initial header --- > >From : "Randolph Chung" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To : "John David Anglin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC : > [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL > PROTECTED],debian-hppa@lists.debian.org,[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date : Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:53:08 +0800 > Subject : Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa] > > >>Confirmed. We are passing a function pointer with a value of -2 into > > >>__cffc, which should not happen... > > > > > > > > > Is -2 a special signal number? > > > > I don't think so. in any case, others have observed that if they use an > > older glibc, this problem does not happen. > > randolph > Hello all, > Which kernel was it? The buildd in question is currently running a 2.4.26-64 kernel. > In fact while simply rebuilding a kernel (as root, without fakeroot), I also > observe a segfault with 2.6.8 and 2.6.10 (on c110 and d380) but panicing > 2.6.12 (on the same c110 and d380) as well as 2.6.13-rc6 on d380 and b2k. > Fwiw with kernel 2.6.11.12, the rebuild runs fine on this same d380 and b2k. Well, there have certainly been various and sundry known kernel issues on hppa, but this seems wholly unrelated to them. > That's confusing me: is there actualy a pb in libc or do we need some > constraint to install this new libc? glibc seems to be the one thing that's changed; running make manually with a copy of glibc 2.3.2 in the chroot works just fine. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I will move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
-- Initial header --- >From : "Randolph Chung" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : "John David Anglin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC : [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian-hppa@lists.debian.org,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date : Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:53:08 +0800 Subject : Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa] > >>Confirmed. We are passing a function pointer with a value of -2 into > >>__cffc, which should not happen... > > > > > > Is -2 a special signal number? > > I don't think so. in any case, others have observed that if they use an > older glibc, this problem does not happen. > > randolph > Hello all, Which kernel was it? In fact while simply rebuilding a kernel (as root, without fakeroot), I also observe a segfault with 2.6.8 and 2.6.10 (on c110 and d380) but panicing 2.6.12 (on the same c110 and d380) as well as 2.6.13-rc6 on d380 and b2k. Fwiw with kernel 2.6.11.12, the rebuild runs fine on this same d380 and b2k. That's confusing me: is there actualy a pb in libc or do we need some constraint to install this new libc? Thanks, Joel --- NOTE! My email address is changing to ... @scarlet.be Please make the necessary changes in your address book.
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> >>Confirmed. We are passing a function pointer with a value of -2 into > >>__cffc, which should not happen... > > > > > > Is -2 a special signal number? > > I don't think so. in any case, others have observed that if they use an > older glibc, this problem does not happen. Not sure this is related, but your put_user kernel patch fixed some c++ issues. There are also issues with the alignment of alternate signal stacks. Dave -- J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
Confirmed. We are passing a function pointer with a value of -2 into __cffc, which should not happen... Is -2 a special signal number? I don't think so. in any case, others have observed that if they use an older glibc, this problem does not happen. randolph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> > no, it's not fakeroot, it's make segfaulting ... > [...] > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > > [Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 16911)] > > 0x4091fd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () from > > /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > (gdb) bt > > #0 0x4091fd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () > >from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > #1 0x4091b424 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > #2 0x405cc950 in sigaction () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #3 0x405cc748 in ssignal () from /lib/libc.so.6 > > #4 0x0001d690 in main () > > (gdb) > > Confirmed. We are passing a function pointer with a value of -2 into > __cffc, which should not happen... Is -2 a special signal number? Dave -- J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> no, it's not fakeroot, it's make segfaulting ... [...] > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > [Switching to Thread 16384 (LWP 16911)] > 0x4091fd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > (gdb) bt > #0 0x4091fd20 in __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare () >from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > #1 0x4091b424 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.0 > #2 0x405cc950 in sigaction () from /lib/libc.so.6 > #3 0x405cc748 in ssignal () from /lib/libc.so.6 > #4 0x0001d690 in main () > (gdb) Confirmed. We are passing a function pointer with a value of -2 into __cffc, which should not happen... This code is a bit fragile wrt to glibc's and the toolchain's idea of the GOT layout and function pointer initialization. Carlos and Dave might have a better idea of what is happening :) I've copied Dave and Carlos in case they don't read these lists. Dave and Carlos, this is a problem with the new glibc in Debian unstable. looks like any app that links libpthread will segfault. randolph -- Randolph Chung Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports http://www.tausq.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
--j79F1xXV029481.1123599719/bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#321785: fakeroot: segfaults on [hppa]
> fakeroot-tcp shows the same behaviour. reverting back to glibc-2.3.2 > is a workaround. Does building fakeroot against glibc 2.3.5 change anything? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
