Re: Status of build bots?

[Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>]

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.

zw