Re: Strange failures on 4.9.6-3 kernel
On 09/02/2017 20:14, James Clarke wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 21:31, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While testing glibc on the kindly provided T5 machine from Debian environment,
>> I started to see some strange issues on sparc64 where glibc is failing on
>> mostly static tests.
>>
>> Funny thing is I checked the latest working revision I used to update 2.25
>> release page [1] and now the tests that used to pass are now failing. In
>> fact I checked even the 2.23 and 2.24 glibc releases and both show the same
>> issues as master branch, so I am almost ruling out a glibc regression (which
>> was my first idea).
>>
>> I noted that the machine kernel was updated (from 4.9.2-2 to 4.9.6-3), but
>> I am not sure if this is something to kernel. I haven't recorded the
>> gcc revision I used on my initial testings. The static tets are failing due
>> a memcpy call that issues bogus instructions:
>>
>> (gdb) r
>> Starting program: /home/azanella/glibc/glibc-git-build/elf/tst-tls1-static
>>
>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>> 0x0000000000000340 in ?? ()
>> (gdb) bt
>> #0 0x0000000000000340 in ?? ()
>> #1 0x0000000000101fd8 in __libc_setup_tls () at libc-tls.c:180
>> #2 0x0000000000101950 in __libc_start_main (main=0x4e8, argc=<optimized out>, argv=0x7feffffef78, init=0x4a8, fini=0x220, rtld_fini=0x0, stack_end=0x1)
>> at libc-start.c:189
>> #3 0x0000000000100704 in _start () at ../sysdeps/sparc/sparc64/start.S:88
>> Backtrace stopped: previous frame identical to this frame (corrupt stack?)
>>
>> (gdb) up
>> [...]
>> 0x0000000000101fc8 <+344>: add %l4, %o0, %o0
>> 0x0000000000101fcc <+348>: mov %i1, %o1
>> 0x0000000000101fd0 <+352>: call 0x2949c0
>> 0x0000000000101fd4 <+356>: stx %o0, [ %i4 + 0x20 ]
>> => 0x0000000000101fd8 <+360>: sethi %hi(0x4800), %g3
>>
>> It seems 0x2949c0 is a unknown address, where it should be the memcpy one.
>
> Do you have the .o still for this? I would be interested to see what the
> relocation was. One thing that has changed within the last week is enabling
> PIE by default in GCC, though this call is a plain PC-relative one.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
Yes, objdump shows:
$ objdump -r string/memcpy.o
string/memcpy.o: file format elf64-sparc
RELOCATION RECORDS FOR [.text]:
OFFSET TYPE VALUE
0000000000000010 R_SPARC_GOT22 __memcpy_niagara4
0000000000000014 R_SPARC_GOT10 __memcpy_niagara4
0000000000000028 R_SPARC_GOT22 __memcpy_niagara2
000000000000002c R_SPARC_GOT10 __memcpy_niagara2
0000000000000040 R_SPARC_GOT22 __memcpy_niagara1
0000000000000044 R_SPARC_GOT10 __memcpy_niagara1
0000000000000058 R_SPARC_GOT22 __memcpy_ultra3
000000000000005c R_SPARC_GOT10 __memcpy_ultra3
0000000000000068 R_SPARC_GOT22 __memcpy_ultra1
000000000000006c R_SPARC_GOT10 __memcpy_ultra1
0000000000000088 R_SPARC_GOT22 __mempcpy_niagara4
000000000000008c R_SPARC_GOT10 __mempcpy_niagara4
00000000000000a0 R_SPARC_GOT22 __mempcpy_niagara2
00000000000000a4 R_SPARC_GOT10 __mempcpy_niagara2
00000000000000b8 R_SPARC_GOT22 __mempcpy_niagara1
00000000000000bc R_SPARC_GOT10 __mempcpy_niagara1
00000000000000d0 R_SPARC_GOT22 __mempcpy_ultra3
00000000000000d4 R_SPARC_GOT10 __mempcpy_ultra3
00000000000000e0 R_SPARC_GOT22 __mempcpy_ultra1
00000000000000e4 R_SPARC_GOT10 __mempcpy_ultra1
[debug relocations...]
Which is expected to use GOT relocations for PIE. And if I build the
same object with -fno-pie I do see:
string/memcpy.o: file format elf64-sparc
RELOCATION RECORDS FOR [.text]:
OFFSET TYPE VALUE
0000000000000010 R_SPARC_HI22 __memcpy_niagara4
0000000000000014 R_SPARC_LO10 __memcpy_niagara4
0000000000000028 R_SPARC_HI22 __memcpy_niagara2
000000000000002c R_SPARC_LO10 __memcpy_niagara2
0000000000000040 R_SPARC_HI22 __memcpy_niagara1
0000000000000044 R_SPARC_LO10 __memcpy_niagara1
0000000000000058 R_SPARC_HI22 __memcpy_ultra3
000000000000005c R_SPARC_LO10 __memcpy_ultra3
0000000000000068 R_SPARC_HI22 __memcpy_ultra1
000000000000006c R_SPARC_LO10 __memcpy_ultra1
0000000000000088 R_SPARC_HI22 __mempcpy_niagara4
000000000000008c R_SPARC_LO10 __mempcpy_niagara4
00000000000000a0 R_SPARC_HI22 __mempcpy_niagara2
00000000000000a4 R_SPARC_LO10 __mempcpy_niagara2
00000000000000b8 R_SPARC_HI22 __mempcpy_niagara1
00000000000000bc R_SPARC_LO10 __mempcpy_niagara1
00000000000000d0 R_SPARC_HI22 __mempcpy_ultra3
00000000000000d4 R_SPARC_LO10 __mempcpy_ultra3
00000000000000e0 R_SPARC_HI22 __mempcpy_ultra1
00000000000000e4 R_SPARC_LO10 __mempcpy_ultra1
I think no one rally tried to build the glibc with a default pie gcc so it
might the side-effects of it. I tried to build with CC='gcc -fno-pie', but
it failed on sunrpc/cross-rpcgen again with a segfault due a bogus jump
from a possible mis-relocation.
I am rebuilding gcc 6 without default pie to check if I can rebuilt and
run glibc correctly.
Reply to: