Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/glibc.mdwn')
1 files changed, 625 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/glibc.mdwn b/open_issues/glibc.mdwn
index 3143774..b453b44 100644
@@ -281,14 +281,55 @@ Last reviewed up to the [[Git mirror's 0323d08657f111267efa47bd448fbf6cd76befe8
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-09:
+ <gg0> does hurd MADV_DONTNEED or MADV_FREE or none?
+ <gg0> seems it builds by defining JEMALLOC_PURGE_MADVISE_DONTNEED
+ but i don't know what i'm talking about, so it could build with
+ JEMALLOC_PURGE_MADVISE_FREE as well
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-10:
+ <youpi> gg0: it implements none, even if it defines DONTNEED (but
+ not FREE)
+ See also:
+ gnash (0.8.11~git20130903-1) unstable; urgency=low
+ * Git snapshot.
+ + Embedded jemalloc copy has been replaced by system one.
+ - Disable jemalloc on hurd and kfreebsd-*. No longer disabled upstream.
Then define `_POSIX_MAPPED_FILES`, `_POSIX_SYNCHRONIZED_IO`.
- * `sys/epoll.h`
+ * `epoll`, `sys/epoll.h`
Used by [[wayland]], for example.
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-08:
+ <nalaginrut> is there any possible to have kquque/epoll alike
+ things in hurd? or there is one?
+ <braunr> nalaginrut: use select/poll
+ <nalaginrut> is it possible to implement epoll?
+ <braunr> it is
+ <braunr> we don't care enough about it to do it
+ <braunr> (for now)
+ <nalaginrut> well, since I wrote a server with Guile, and it could
+ take advantage of epoll, never mind, if there's no, it'll use
+ select automatically
+ <nalaginrut> but if someday someone care about it, I'll be
+ interested on it
+ <braunr> epoll is a scalability improvement over poll
+ <braunr> the hurd being full of scalability issues, this one is
+ clearly not a priority
+ <nalaginrut> ok
@@ -390,6 +431,429 @@ Last reviewed up to the [[Git mirror's 0323d08657f111267efa47bd448fbf6cd76befe8
libgc, libsigsegv, luatex, mono, nspr, pth, ruby1.8, texlive-bin, uim,
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-08:
+ <pinotree> oh, and even ruby2.0 suffers because of fixed-stack
+ <youpi> yes, we definitely need to finish fixing it
+ <youpi> my current work is in our glibc repo, youpi/tls-threadvar
+ <pinotree> | *** makecontext: a stack at 0xbc000 with size 0x40000
+ is not usable with threadvars
+ <pinotree> all 8 failing tests with that
+ <youpi> maybe we can hand-disable the use of contexts in ruby for
+ <pinotree> gg0: ↑ :)
+ <gg0> after the pseudo-patch i RFCed, i don't deserve to say
+ anything else about that :)
+ <pinotree> i mean, feel free to investigate and "fix" ruby2.0 as
+ above :)
+ <gg0> eh maybe i'd just be able to hand-disable failing
+ thread-related _tests_ :)
+ <gg0> i'm still hoping some real developer picks and actually fixes
+ it, seems it's not enough interesting though
+ <azeem> 21:37 < youpi> yes, we definitely need to finish fixing it
+ <gg0> afaiu youpi is working on threadvars-tls migration, which
+ would mean fixing them all. i just meant fixing ruby, which would
+ mean having puppet btw
+ <youpi> gg0: "actually fixing" means fixing threadvars-tls
+ <youpi> "just fixing" ruby can be done by simply disabling context
+ use in ruby
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-10:
+ <gg0> this one fixes make test by disabling context and giving more
+ time to timing related tests http://paste.debian.net/plain/37977/
+ <gg0> make test-all is another story
+ <youpi> gg0: AIUI, the sleep part should get fixed by the next
+ glibc upload, which will include the getclk patch
+ <youpi> but the disabling context part could be good to submit to
+ the debian ruby package, mentioning that this is a workaround for
+ <gg0> unfortunately still not enough, test-all still fails
+ <youpi> does it make the package not build?
+ <gg0> test-all is the second part of what we call tests
+ <gg0> they build and package (they produce all ruby packages),
+ after that they run debian/run-test-suites.bash which is make
+ test + make test-all
+ <gg0> well after or during the build doesn't matter, it's their
+ <gg0> ok just failed:
+ <gg0> TestBug4409#test_bug4409 = Illegal instruction
+ <gg0> make: *** [yes-test-all] Error 132
+ <gg0> what to do with Illegal instruction?
+ <gg0> just found 2 words that make everybody shut up :p
+ <pinotree> same as above: debug it
+ <teythoon> gg0: have you confirmed that this is reproducible? I've
+ once had a process die with SIGILL and it was not and I figured
+ it might have been a (qemu?) glitch
+ <gg0> seems i'm running tests which are disabled on _all_ archs,
+ better so
+ <gg0> well, this should be reproducible. i just got it on a qemu, i
+ could try to reproduce it on real hardware but as just said, i
+ was testing tests disabled by maintainer so completely useless
+ <teythoon> gg0: yeah, I'm running all my hurd instances on qemu/kvm
+ as well, I meant did you get this twice in a row?
+ <gg0> to be honest i got another illegal instruction months ago but
+ don't recall doing what
+ <gg0> nope not twice, i've commented it out. then run the remaining
+ and then found out i should not have done what i was doing
+ <gg0> but i could try to reproduce it
+ <gg0> ok now i recall i got it another one few hours ago on real
+ hardware, from logs:
+ <gg0> TestIO#test_copy_stream_socket = Illegal instruction
+ <gg0> teythoon: on real hardware though
+ <gg0> and this is the one i should debug once it finishes, still
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-11:
+ <gg0_> ../sysdeps/mach/hurd/jmp-unwind.c:53: _longjmp_unwind:
+ Assertion `! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)'
+ <gg0_> and
+ <gg0_> ../libpthread/sysdeps/mach/pt-thread-halt.c:51:
+ __pthread_thread_halt: Unexpected error: (ipc/send) invalid
+ destination port.
+ <tschwinge> gg0_: Which libpthread source are these? Stock Debian
+ <gg0_> tschwinge: everything debian, ruby rebuilt with
+ http://paste.debian.net/plain/38519/ which should disable
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-11:
+ <gg0_> wrt ruby, i'd propose a patch that disables *context and
+ comments out failed tests (a dozen). most of them are timing
+ related, don't always fail
+ <gg0_> if they failed gracefully, we could leave them enabled and
+ just ignoring testsuite result, but most of them block testsuite
+ run when fail
+ <gg0_> anyone against? any better idea (and intention to implement
+ it? :p)?
+ <gg0_> youpi: is disabling some tests acceptable? ^
+ <youpi> it'd be good to at least know what is failing
+ <youpi> so as to know what impact hiding these failures will have
+ <youpi> remember that hiding bugs usually means getting bitten by
+ them even harder later :)
+ <gg0_> many of them use pipes
+ <gg0_> here the final list, see commented out ones
+ <gg0_> and as said some don't always fails
+ <gg0_> test_copy_stream_socket uses a socket
+ <youpi> note that we can still at least build packages with notest
+ <youpi> at least to get the binaries uploaded
+ <youpi> disabling *context should however really be done
+ <youpi> and the pipe issues are concerning
+ <youpi> I don't remember other pipe issues
+ <youpi> so maybe it's a but in the ruby bindings
+ <gg0_> i just remember they didn't die, then something unknown
+ fixed it
+ <youpi> I see something frightening in io.c
+ <youpi> #if BSD_STDIO
+ <youpi> preserving_errno(fseeko(f, lseek(fileno(f),
+ (off_t)0, SEEK_CUR), SEEK_SET));
+ <youpi> #endif
+ <youpi> this looks very much like a workaround for an odd thing in
+ <youpi> it happens that that gets enabled on hurd too, since
+ __MACH__ is defined
+ <youpi> you could try to drop these three lines, just to see
+ <youpi> this is very probably very worth investigating, at any rate
+ <youpi> even just test_gets_limit_extra_arg is a very simple test,
+ that I fail to see why it should ever fail on hurd-i386
+ <youpi> starting debugging it would be a matter of putting printfs
+ in io.c, to check what gets called, with what parameters, etc.
+ <youpi> just a matter of taking the time to do it, it's not very
+ <gg0_> youpi: are you looking at 1.8? no BSD_STDIO here
+ <youpi> yes, 1.8
+ <gg0_> 126.96.36.1998
+ <gg0_> landed to sid few days ago
+ <youpi> ah, I have 1.87
+ <youpi> +.
+ <gg0_> my favourites are TestIO#test_copy_stream_socket and
+ TestIO#test_cross_thread_close_fd -> Illegal instruction
+ <gg0_> TestIO#test_io_select_with_many_files sometimes Illegal
+ instruction, sometimes ruby1.9.1:
+ ../sysdeps/mach/hurd/jmp-unwind.c:53: _longjmp_unwind: Assertion
+ `! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)' failed.
+ <gg0_> trying to debug illegal instruction
+ <gg0_> (yes, i'm not even good at gdbing)
+ <gg0_> any hint?
+ <gg0_> oh found out there's an intree .gdbinit, that might
+ complicate things
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-13:
+ <gg0_> where should it be implemented MAP_STACK? plus, is it worth
+ doing it considering migration to tls, wouldn't it be useless?
+ <gg0_> sysdeps/mach/hurd/mmap.c i should reduce stupid questions
+ frequency from daily to weekly basis
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-14:
+ <gg0_> say i managed to mmap 0x200000-aligned memory
+ <gg0_> now i get almost the same failed tests i get disabling
+ <gg0_> that would mean they don't depend on threading
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-16:
+ <gg0> i get many ../sysdeps/mach/hurd/jmp-unwind.c:53:
+ _longjmp_unwind: Assertion `! __spin_lock_locked
+ (&ss->critical_section_lock)' failed.
+ <gg0> by running ruby testsuite, especially during test_read* tests
+ <gg0> read/write operations with pipes
+ <braunr> gg0: that's weird
+ <braunr> gg0: debian glibc ?
+ <gg0> braunr: yep, debian 2.17-92
+ <gg0> sometimes assertion above, sometimes tests in question get
+ stuck reading
+ <gg0> it would be nice reproducing it w/o ruby
+ <gg0> probably massive io on pipes could do the job
+ <gg0> also more nice finding someone who finds it interesting to
+ fix :p
+ <gg0> ruby is rebuilt with http://paste.debian.net/plain/40755/, no
+ <gg0> pipe function in tests above creates one thread for write,
+ one for read
+ <tschwinge> gg0: About the jmp-unwind assertion failure: is it be
+ chance this issue:
+ I didn't look in detail.
+ <braunr> tschwinge: that's what i thought too about the assertion,
+ which is why i find it strange
+ <gg0> asserting it's not locked then locking it doesn't exclude
+ race conditions
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-17:
+ <gg0> youpi: i guess no one saw it anymore since
+ tg-thread-cancel.diff patch
+ <gg0> it =
+ <gg0> this one comes from sysdeps/mach/hurd/jmp-unwind.c:53 though
+ <gg0> another assertion to remove?
+ <youpi> gg0: it's not exactly the same: in hurd_thread_cancel we
+ hold no lock at all at the assertion point
+ <youpi> in jmp-unwind.c, we do hold a lock
+ <youpi> and the assertion might be actually true because all other
+ threads are supposed to hold the first lock before taking the
+ other one
+ <youpi> you could check for that in other places
+ <youpi> and maybe it's the other place which wouldhave to be fixed
+ <youpi> also look for documentation which would say that
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-17:
+ <braunr_> gg0: is that what we do ??
+ <gg0> braunr: well, i was looking at
+ <gg0> which afaics fixes
+ <gg0> the one i get now is
+ <gg0> 09:12 < youpi> gg0: it's not exactly the same: in
+ hurd_thread_cancel we hold no lock at all at the assertion point
+ <gg0> 09:13 < youpi> in jmp-unwind.c, we do hold a lock
+ <gg0> 09:13 < youpi> and the assertion might be actually true
+ because all other threads are supposed to hold the first lock
+ before taking the other one
+ <braunr> gg0: that assertion is normal
+ <braunr> it says there is a deadlock
+ <braunr> ss->critical_section_lock must be taken before ss->lock
+ <gg0> you mean ss->lock before ss->critical_section_lock
+ <braunr> no
+ <gg0> ah ok got it
+ <braunr> that's a bug
+ <braunr> longjmp
+ <braunr> ugh
+ <braunr> you could make a pass through the various uses of those
+ locks and check what the intended locking protocol should be
+ <braunr> i inferred ss->critical_section_lock before ss->lock from
+ <braunr> this might be wrong too but considering this function is
+ used a lot, i doubt it
+ <gg0> (no, i hadn't got it, i was looking at jmp-unwind.c where
+ lock is before critical_section_lock)
+ <gg0> could we get useful info from gdb'ing the assertion?
+ <tschwinge> gg0: Only if you first get an understanding why it is
+ happening, what you expect to happen instead/why it shall not
+ happen/etc. Then you can perhaps use GDB to verify that.
+ <gg0> i can offer an irc interface if anyone is interested, it's
+ ready, just to attach :)
+ <gg0> this is the test
+ <gg0> pipe function creates two threads
+ <gg0> Attaching to pid 15552
+ <gg0> [New Thread 15552.1]
+ <gg0> [New Thread 15552.2]
+ <gg0> (gdb)
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-21:
+ <youpi> gg0: it seems the assert (! __spin_lock_locked
+ (&ss->critical_section_lock)); is bogus
+ <youpi> but it'd be good to catch a call trace
+ <youpi> well, it may not be bogus, in case that lock is only ever
+ taken by the thread itself
+ <youpi> in that case, inside longjmp_unwind we're not supposed to
+ have it already
+ <youpi> ok, that's what we had tried to discuss with Roland
+ <youpi> it can happen when playing with thread cancelation
+ <braunr> youpi: the assertion isn't exactly bogus
+ <braunr> the lock ordering is
+ <youpi> braunr: which one are you talking about?
+ <youpi> the one in hurd_thread_cancel looks really wrong
+ <youpi> and some parts of the code keep the critical section lock
+ without ss->lock held, so I don't see how lock ordering can help
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-22:
+ <gg0> how much does this patch suck on a scale from 1 to 10?
+ <youpi> well, the stack allocation issue will go away once I get
+ the threadvars away
+ <youpi> I'm working on it right now
+ <youpi> about the lib paths, it makes sense to add the gnu case,
+ but i386-gnu shouldn't be put in the path
+ <gg0> that's great
+ <gg0> so seems the wrong moment for what i've already done
+ ie. asking terceiro what he thinks about patch above :/
+ <gg0> any distro-independent way to get libc.so and libm.so path?
+ <gg0> ruby as last resource takes them from "ldd ruby"
+ <pinotree> gg0: should work fine then
+ <gg0> well it does. but gnu doesn't have a case so it hits default
+ which is broken
+ <gg0> btw even linux and kfreebsd with debian multipath have broken
+ cases but they don't hit default and get fixed by ldd later
+ <pinotree> why it is broken? are arguments passed to that script?
+ <gg0> i'm not sure about what propose. a broken case so it doesn't
+ hit default like linux and kfbsd
+ <gg0> yes they are :/
+ <pinotree> and which ones are? who executes that script and which
+ arguments does it pass to it?
+ <gg0> other ruby scripts which have nothing to do with libc/libm
+ <pinotree> well, if they pass arguments which should be the paths
+ to libc and libm, they must be getting such paths, aren't they?
+ <gg0> they don't. arguments are other ruby scripts, don't know why,
+ maybe something else broken before
+ <gg0> but that would mean that before there's a smarter path
+ detection way, i doubt
+ <pinotree> then add the case for hurd, but setting both libc and
+ libm as nil
+ <pinotree> so they will be fetched again
+ <gg0> yep and would really ugly
+ <gg0> +be
+ <gg0> "please commit this one which wrongly sets paths."
+ <gg0> an alternative would be removing default case
+ <gg0> or pointing it out by proposing ldd in hurd case might make
+ them review the whole detection
+ <gg0> by setting correct paths like in patch above it wouldn't
+ break a possible hurd-amd64, it would work due to ldd
+ <youpi> gg0: that's why I said the patch is fine, but without the
+ i386-gnu part of the path
+ <youpi> just like it happens to be on linux & kfreebsd
+ <gg0> i might take ldconfig -p output
+ <gg0> to make it uselessly correct from start
+ <gg0> http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8937
+ <pinotree> note thar ruby 1.8 is EOL
+ <pinotree> *that
+ <gg0> -- If you're reporting a bug in both Ruby 1.9/2.0 and Ruby
+ 1.8: ruby-trunk, and write like "this bug can be reproduced in
+ Ruby 1.8 as well." --
+ <gg0> i suspect this one won't be the only one i'll file. unless
+ upcoming youpi's tls and braunr's thread destruction patches fix
+ all ruby tests
+ <pinotree> did you check ruby2.0 too, btw?
+ <gg0> switched to ruby2 few hours ago. i pointed out 2nd part of
+ testsuite is not enabled, probably terceiro will enable it soon
+ <gg0> by applying my patch above we'd completely fix current
+ ruby2.0 build (yes because tests are not completely enabled)
+ <pinotree> what you run those extra tests?
+ <gg0> make test + make test-all
+ <gg0> (test-all is 2nd part)
+ <gg0> many are problematic. i didn't finish yet to suppress them
+ one-by-one. one i suppress, another one pops up
+ <gg0> either get stuck or well known assertion
+ <pinotree> check those that get stuck :)
+ <gg0> which kind of check?
+ <pinotree> "check" as in "debug"
+ <gg0> btw i tested puppet few days ago (with ruby1.8), it seems to
+ be working, at least at trasferring files from master
+ <gg0> don't know about any advanced usage
+ <pinotree> ruby 1.8 is going to die soon, so testing things against
+ it is not totally useful
+ <gg0> so you assume 1.8 is less broken than 1.9/2.0, right?
+ <pinotree> no
+ <gg0> i just can see it's been built without tests itself too
+ <pinotree> erm no
+ <gg0> well ok, if i can be wrong, i'll be wrong
+ <gg0> i say that after a quick check time ago, might be wrong
+ <pinotree> `getbuildlogs ruby1.8 last hurd-i386`, see the last
+ build log
+ <gg0> ah from pkg-kde-tools
+ <gg0> i hate kde :)
+ <pinotree> no?
+ <gg0> no what?
+ <pinotree> devscripts: /usr/bin/getbuildlog
+ <gg0> pkg-kde-tools: /usr/bin/pkgkde-getbuildlogs
+ <pinotree> which is not what i said
+ <gg0> wait that's what apt-file found
+ <gg0> maybe i should update it
+ <gg0> is it so recent?
+ <pinotree> no
+ <pinotree> i just added an 's' more at the end of the command, but
+ typing getbu<tab> could have been helpful anyway...
+ <gg0> yeah just got it
+ <gg0> my fault not to have tried to run it before looking for it
+ <pinotree> and btw, i don't see what hating kde has to do with
+ tools developed by qt/kde debian packagers
+ <gg0> j/k i simply don't use kde, never used and apt-file search
+ told me it was from pkg-kde-tools
+ <gg0> btw build log says "make test" fails, doesn't even start. and
+ its failure doesn't block the build
+ <pinotree> exactly
+ <gg0> s/make test/make test-all/
+ <gg0> "make test" (aka "1st part" above) doesn't run. i guess it's
+ missing in packaging
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-22:
+ <braunr> youpi: i mean the lock order where the assertion occurs is
+ reserved compared to the one in hurd_thread_cancel
+ <braunr> (and the one in hurd_thread_cancel is the same used in
+ hurd condition-related functions)
+ <youpi> "reserved" ?
+ <braunr> reversed
+ <braunr> :)
+ <youpi> by "the assertion occurs", you mean gg0's spot?
+ <braunr> yes
+ <youpi> well , the assertion also happens in hurd_thread_cancel
+ <braunr> it does oO
+ <braunr> i didn't see that
+ <youpi> but otherwise yes, it's completely bogus that we have both
+ locking in different orders
+ <youpi> could you submit the fix for jmp-unwind.c to upstream?
+ <braunr> what fix ?
+ <youpi> reversing the lock order
+ <braunr> ah, simply that
+ <youpi> (well, provided that hurd_thread_cancel is right)
+ <braunr> that's what i suggested to gg0
+ <braunr> to check where those locks are held and determine the
+ right order
* `recvmmsg`/`sendmmsg` (`t/sendmmsg`)
From [[!message-id "20120625233206.C000A2C06F@topped-with-meat.com"]],
@@ -401,13 +865,140 @@ Last reviewed up to the [[Git mirror's 0323d08657f111267efa47bd448fbf6cd76befe8
Then perhaps the Linux fallback case should be that instead of stubs,
+ * `SOCK_CLOEXEC`
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-02:
+ <gnu_srs1> Do we support accept4 with the SOCK_CLOEXEC flag?
+ <gnu_srs1> According to the code in sysdeps/mach/hurd/accept4.c
+ that case is not covered
+ <gnu_srs1> (only O_NONBLOCK, not SOCK_NONBLOCK??))
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs1: we do
+ <pinotree> but only for accept4, not for socket and socketpair
+ <gnu_srs1> pinotree: cannot find the case for O_CLOEXEC covered in
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs1: no, you need SOCK_*
+ <gnu_srs1> The only code for accept4() is in sysdeps/mach/hurd/ and
+ it uses O_* for flags ?
+ <pinotree> flags = sock_to_o_flags (flags);
+ <pinotree> tried checking it?
+ <gnu_srs1> Aha, tks:-D
+ <pinotree> and you don't need an explicit case of O_CLOEXEC, since
+ it is handled in other ways
+ [[!message-id "1378154151.21738.15.camel@G3620.my.own.domain"]].
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-03:
+ <gnu_srs> any ideas about the SOCK_CLOEXEC issue?
+ <pinotree> didn't i tell already about it?
+ <gnu_srs> I did not find any hurd related code in tschwinges
+ <pinotree> you didn't check deep then...
+ <gnu_srs> so why does socket/socketpair not return ENOSYS then?
+ <pinotree> why should it, since they are implemented?
+ <braunr> ...
+ <gnu_srs> for socket/socketpair?
+ <braunr> gnu_srs: enosys means no system call
+ <gnu_srs> s/ENOSYS/EINVAL/
+ <gnu_srs> see the mail to the bug-hurd/debian-hurd ML for more info
+ <gnu_srs> and tschwinges reply
+ <pinotree> which is what i knew already?
+ <gnu_srs> pinotree: please reply on the mailing list on the EINVAL
+ vs EPROTOTYPE issue to clarify things
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs:
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs: things were clear already...
+ <gnu_srs> pinotree: I've read that patch and still pflocal/pf.c
+ returns EPROTOTYPE not changed by the __socket wrapper in eglibc
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs: what about realizing SOCK_CLOEXEC and friends
+ are NOT posix?
+ <gnu_srs> since socket/socketpair does not return EINVAL the dbus
+ code has to be patched then?
+ <pinotree> pflocal should never ever get such flags mixed to the
+ protocol, so any invalid value of protocol correctly returns
+ <gnu_srs> this is the question I need answered: Which way to go?
+ <pinotree> all of them
+ <gnu_srs> ?
+ <pinotree> - applications should not assume that because you have
+ accept4 (which is not posix) then SOCK_CLOEXEC and SOCK_NONBLOCK
+ (flags for it) are usable to socket and socketpair
+ <pinotree> - glibc should (as the idea of my patch) handle
+ implementations providing SOCK_* but not supporting them for
+ <pinotree> - finally the hurd part of glibc could implement them
+ <gnu_srs> to conclude: should I send a bug report for dbus then?
+ <gnu_srs> pinotree: yes or no?
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs: *shrug* i wrote it above, so an *upstream*
+ report (not a debian one)
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-06:
+ <gnu_srs> I've found another error code issue, now in glib2.0 (and
+ dbus). Are you really sure the error code
+ <gnu_srs> for protocol of pflocal/pf.c should be
+ EPROTONOSUPPORT. The code expects EINVAL for a protocol with
+ <gnu_srs> SOCK_CLOEXEC, which is a flag. Maybe pf.c should add
+ this case and return EINVAL instead of
+ <gnu_srs> submitting bug reports upstream. Yes, I know this is not
+ POSIX, but it is defined for Hurd too,
+ <gnu_srs> currently only supported for accept4, not socket or
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs: no, and i explained already why it is wrong
+ this way
+ <pinotree> pflocal shouldn't even get such flags
+ <pinotree> (pflocal or any other server implementing socket_create)
+ <gnu_srs> (20:19:35) pinotree: pflocal shouldn't even get such
+ <gnu_srs> then the glibc wrapper code is missing to catch this
+ <gnu_srs> youpi: ?
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs: because, as told many times, socket and
+ socketpair do not support such flags
+ <pinotree> given they don't do, they filter nothing
+ <pinotree> and no, you need to file bugs upstream, since having
+ SOCK_* and accept4 does not imply at all that socket and
+ socketpair support them
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-07:
+ <gnu_srs> A correction from yesterdays discussion:
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-09-10:
+ <gnu_srs> for dbus2.0 I found out that the third SOCK_CLOEXEC case
+ needs a patch too (more working tests),
+ <gnu_srs> the updated patch is at http://paste.debian.net/37948/ if
+ you have the time, otherwise I'll do it.
+ <pinotree> gnu_srs: which is what i wrote in my bug report...
+ <gnu_srs> Yes you wrote that, but the patch is not updated yet?
+ <pinotree> it refers to a different socket access, recently added,
+ which is not used by default
+ <gnu_srs> I got two more tests running when adding that patch:-/
+ <pinotree> tests of what?
+ <gnu_srs> run-test.sh and run-test-systemserver.sh:P
+ <pinotree> tests of what?
+ <pinotree> i don't have the universal knowledge of the files in all
+ the sources
+ <gnu_srs> dbus-1.6.14/test/name-test/*
+ [[!message-id "523A3D6C.email@example.com"]].
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-19:
+ <pinotree> tschwinge: ehm, regarding the SOCK_* patches for
+ socket/socketpair, didn't we talk about them when i worked on
+ eglibc 2.17?
For specific packages:
* Create `t/cleanup_kernel-features.h`.
- * Add tests from Linux kernel commit messages for `t/dup3` et al.
+ * [[Secure_file_descriptor_handling]].
* In `sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/Makefile`, there are a bunch of
`-DHAVE_SENDFILE` -- but we do have `sendfile`, too.
@@ -927,6 +1518,31 @@ Last reviewed up to the [[Git mirror's 0323d08657f111267efa47bd448fbf6cd76befe8
<tschwinge> Yeah, that's known for years... :-D
<tschwinge> Probably not too difficult to resolve, though.
+ * IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-08-16:
+ <pinotree> http://paste.debian.net/25934/ ← _hurd_thread_sigstate calls
+ malloc, boom
+ * `conformtest`
+ IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-09-22:
+ <youpi> btw, I noticed that glibc has a head conformance test which we
+ happily fail quite a bit :)
+ <youpi> it's not so awful, we don't have twice as many failures as
+ linux, but not so far
+ <pinotree> youpi: do you mean "header" for "head", right?
+ <youpi> err, where ? :)
+ <pinotree> <youpi> btw, I noticed that glibc has a head conformance
+ test which we happily fail quite a bit :)
+ <youpi> ah, yes
+ <pinotree> noticed that too
+ <youpi> I had a quick look at the POSIX part, some things are probably
+ not too hard to change (e.g. exposing pthread_kill in signal.h)
+ <youpi> others will by quite hard to fix (short type instead of int
+ type for some flock structure field)
+ <youpi> s/by/be/
* Verify baseline changes, if we need any follow-up changes:
@@ -1253,6 +1869,13 @@ TODO.
+ IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-08-27:
+ < gnu_srs> Hi, is this fixed by now?
+ < gnu_srs> ../hurd/hurd.h:72:5: warning: case value ‘0’ not in
+ enumerated type ‘error_t’ [-Wswitch]
+ < pinotree> nope
(or probably Samuel's mmap backport) introduces: