GNU bug report logs - #26497
glibc 2.25 broken on i686

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 26497 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 26497 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: glibc 2.25 broken on i686
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:47:59 +0200

Guix on i686 is broken since the update to glibc 2.25.  There are
seemingly random segfaults all over the place on my server.

Ludo posted this upstream discussion:

    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182

I could test the patch on my i686 system, but it would take much too
long for me to build the system from source on my machines.

-- 
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #8 received at 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26497: glibc 2.25 broken on i686
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:56:27 +0200

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:

> Guix on i686 is broken since the update to glibc 2.25.  There are
> seemingly random segfaults all over the place on my server.
>
> Ludo posted this upstream discussion:
>
>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182

Perhaps we don’t see the problem when running i686 code on x86_64.

> I could test the patch on my i686 system, but it would take much too
> long for me to build the system from source on my machines.

Could you first check if there’s a simple way to reproduce it on your
machine?  For example, run “guix build coreutils” or “guix build
coreutils --check” and see if that fails.

If it does, you could arrange to test the patch just in this setup.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #13 received at 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26497: glibc 2.25 broken on i686
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:29:59 +0200

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:
>
>> Guix on i686 is broken since the update to glibc 2.25.  There are
>> seemingly random segfaults all over the place on my server.
>>
>> Ludo posted this upstream discussion:
>>
>>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
>
> Perhaps we don’t see the problem when running i686 code on x86_64.
>
>> I could test the patch on my i686 system, but it would take much too
>> long for me to build the system from source on my machines.
>
> Could you first check if there’s a simple way to reproduce it on your
> machine?  For example, run “guix build coreutils” or “guix build
> coreutils --check” and see if that fails.
>
> If it does, you could arrange to test the patch just in this setup.

Do you mean apply the patch and build on i686 or apply the patch and
build with “--system” on my x86_64 system?

On the i686 system I cannot run anything with the latest glibc, so
building there will likely fail unless the bug is fixed.

-- 
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #16 received at 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26497: glibc 2.25 broken on i686
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:58:41 +0200

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:
>>
>>> Guix on i686 is broken since the update to glibc 2.25.  There are
>>> seemingly random segfaults all over the place on my server.
>>>
>>> Ludo posted this upstream discussion:
>>>
>>>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
>>
>> Perhaps we don’t see the problem when running i686 code on x86_64.
>>
>>> I could test the patch on my i686 system, but it would take much too
>>> long for me to build the system from source on my machines.
>>
>> Could you first check if there’s a simple way to reproduce it on your
>> machine?  For example, run “guix build coreutils” or “guix build
>> coreutils --check” and see if that fails.
>>
>> If it does, you could arrange to test the patch just in this setup.
>
> Do you mean apply the patch and build on i686 or apply the patch and
> build with “--system” on my x86_64 system?
>
> On the i686 system I cannot run anything with the latest glibc, so
> building there will likely fail unless the bug is fixed.

What I mean is that if you could test the patch in any way you like ;-)
and ensure that it fixes the problem, it would be great.

Then we soon apply the patch conditionally on glibc (like I did for the
Coreutils patch for ARM) ASAP so that Hydra has time to rebuild the i686
world.

TIA! :-)

Ludo’.

Message #19 received at 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26497: glibc 2.25 broken on i686
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:24:33 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Guix on i686 is broken since the update to glibc 2.25.  There are
>>>> seemingly random segfaults all over the place on my server.
>>>>
>>>> Ludo posted this upstream discussion:
>>>>
>>>>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
>>>
>>> Perhaps we don’t see the problem when running i686 code on x86_64.
>>>
>>>> I could test the patch on my i686 system, but it would take much too
>>>> long for me to build the system from source on my machines.
>>>
>>> Could you first check if there’s a simple way to reproduce it on your
>>> machine?  For example, run “guix build coreutils” or “guix build
>>> coreutils --check” and see if that fails.
>>>
>>> If it does, you could arrange to test the patch just in this setup.
>>
>> Do you mean apply the patch and build on i686 or apply the patch and
>> build with “--system” on my x86_64 system?
>>
>> On the i686 system I cannot run anything with the latest glibc, so
>> building there will likely fail unless the bug is fixed.
>
> What I mean is that if you could test the patch in any way you like ;-)
> and ensure that it fixes the problem, it would be great.

Oh, okay.  I had misunderstood your message :)

I applied the following patch to my i686 netbook and waited a day for
coreutils and procps to be built with the new glibc.  I cannot reproduce
any crashes with these packages, so this seems to be fine.

> Then we soon apply the patch conditionally on glibc (like I did for the
> Coreutils patch for ARM) ASAP so that Hydra has time to rebuild the i686
> world.

The attached patch is for core-updates, but I could also try to make it
apply conditionally for i686.

[0001-gnu-glibc-linux-Fix-segfaults-on-i686.patch (text/x-patch, inline)]

From 2b2f1d4947e2198f7011b00a496be078f6a924fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:15:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: glibc/linux: Fix segfaults on i686.

* gnu/packages/patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch: New file.
* gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it.
* gnu/packages/base.scm (glibc/linux)[source]: Add patch.
---
 gnu/local.mk                                       |  1 +
 gnu/packages/base.scm                              |  1 +
 .../patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch       | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch

diff --git a/gnu/local.mk b/gnu/local.mk
index a0d7cfd0a..61c3f6ad8 100644
--- a/gnu/local.mk
+++ b/gnu/local.mk
@@ -609,6 +609,7 @@ dist_patch_DATA =						\
   %D%/packages/patches/glibc-bootstrap-system.patch		\
   %D%/packages/patches/glibc-ldd-x86_64.patch			\
   %D%/packages/patches/glibc-locales.patch			\
+  %D%/packages/patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch		\
   %D%/packages/patches/glibc-o-largefile.patch			\
   %D%/packages/patches/glibc-versioned-locpath.patch		\
   %D%/packages/patches/gmp-arm-asm-nothumb.patch		\
diff --git a/gnu/packages/base.scm b/gnu/packages/base.scm
index 4fd9ed87e..52074c655 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/base.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/base.scm
@@ -535,6 +535,7 @@ store.")
             (modules '((guix build utils)))
             (patches (search-patches "glibc-ldd-x86_64.patch"
                                      "glibc-versioned-locpath.patch"
+                                     "glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch"
                                      "glibc-o-largefile.patch"))))
    (build-system gnu-build-system)
 
diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch b/gnu/packages/patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0b1b5b9f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gnu/packages/patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Extracted from glibc upstream git repository.  Changes to the ChangeLog have
+been removed.  This patch is needed to fix spurious segmentation faults on
+i686.
+
+From 3abeeec5f46ff036bd9df60bb096e20314ccd078 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella <at> linaro.org>
+Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:16:13 -0300
+Subject: [PATCH] Fix i686 memchr overflow calculation (BZ#21182)
+
+This patch fixes the regression added by 23d2770 for final address
+overflow calculation.  The subtraction of the considered size (16)
+at line 120 is at wrong place, for sizes less than 16 subsequent
+overflow check will not take in consideration an invalid size (since
+the subtraction will be negative).  Also, the lea instruction also
+does not raise the carry flag (CF) that is used in subsequent jbe
+to check for overflow.
+
+The fix is to follow x86_64 logic from 3daef2c where the overflow
+is first check and a sub instruction is issued.  In case of resulting
+negative size, CF will be set by the sub instruction and a NULL
+result will be returned.  The patch also add similar tests reported
+in bug report.
+
+Checked on i686-linux-gnu and x86_64-linux-gnu.
+
+	* string/test-memchr.c (do_test): Add BZ#21182 checks for address
+	near end of a page.
+	* sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/memchr-sse2.S (__memchr): Fix
+	overflow calculation.
+---
+ string/test-memchr.c                      | 6 ++++++
+ sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/memchr-sse2.S | 2 +-
+ 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
+
+diff --git a/string/test-memchr.c b/string/test-memchr.c
+index 2403c9242b..669e092e7d 100644
+--- a/string/test-memchr.c
++++ b/string/test-memchr.c
+@@ -210,6 +210,12 @@ test_main (void)
+       do_test (0, i, i + 1, i + 1, 0);
+     }
+ 
++  /* BZ#21182 - wrong overflow calculation for i686 implementation
++     with address near end of the page.  */
++  for (i = 2; i < 16; ++i)
++    /* page_size is in fact getpagesize() * 2.  */
++    do_test (page_size / 2 - i, i, i, 1, 0x9B);
++
+   do_random_tests ();
+   return ret;
+ }
+diff --git a/sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/memchr-sse2.S b/sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/memchr-sse2.S
+index 910679cfc0..e41f324a77 100644
+--- a/sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/memchr-sse2.S
++++ b/sysdeps/i386/i686/multiarch/memchr-sse2.S
+@@ -117,7 +117,6 @@ L(crosscache):
+ 
+ # ifndef USE_AS_RAWMEMCHR
+ 	jnz	L(match_case2_prolog1)
+-	lea	-16(%edx), %edx
+         /* Calculate the last acceptable address and check for possible
+            addition overflow by using satured math:
+            edx = ecx + edx
+@@ -125,6 +124,7 @@ L(crosscache):
+ 	add	%ecx, %edx
+ 	sbb	%eax, %eax
+ 	or	%eax, %edx
++	sub	$16, %edx
+ 	jbe	L(return_null)
+ 	lea	16(%edi), %edi
+ # else
+-- 
+2.12.2
+
-- 
2.12.2

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #22 received at 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26497: glibc 2.25 broken on i686
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:33:10 +0200

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> writes:

> I applied the following patch to my i686 netbook and waited a day for
> coreutils and procps to be built with the new glibc.  I cannot reproduce
> any crashes with these packages, so this seems to be fine.

I should also note that I cannot reproduce the crashes at all when
running the old binaries that were built with the broken glibc 2.25.
The crashes only happened on a reconfigured system with the broken glibc
2.25.

I cannot really reconfigure the whole system to test this, because that
would take a very very long time.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #25 received at 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 26497 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26497: glibc 2.25 broken on i686
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:19:15 +0200

Hello!

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:

> I applied the following patch to my i686 netbook and waited a day for
> coreutils and procps to be built with the new glibc.  I cannot reproduce
> any crashes with these packages, so this seems to be fine.
>
>> Then we soon apply the patch conditionally on glibc (like I did for the
>> Coreutils patch for ARM) ASAP so that Hydra has time to rebuild the i686
>> world.
>
> The attached patch is for core-updates, but I could also try to make it
> apply conditionally for i686.

Yes, that would be great.

> From 2b2f1d4947e2198f7011b00a496be078f6a924fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:15:41 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: glibc/linux: Fix segfaults on i686.
>
> * gnu/packages/patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch: New file.
> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it.
> * gnu/packages/base.scm (glibc/linux)[source]: Add patch.

Perfect, thank you for taking care of it!

Ludo’.

Message #30 received at 26497-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 26497-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26497: glibc 2.25 broken on i686
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 19:32:34 +0200

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:

>>From 2b2f1d4947e2198f7011b00a496be078f6a924fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 23:15:41 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: glibc/linux: Fix segfaults on i686.
>
> * gnu/packages/patches/glibc-memchr-overflow-i686.patch: New file.
> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it.
> * gnu/packages/base.scm (glibc/linux)[source]: Add patch.

This was pushed as b2fd8f63679aa4f244c36fdca62f23c00b8eded9; closing.

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.