* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
@ 2015-07-07 8:54 ` glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
2015-07-07 11:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de @ 2015-07-07 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de> ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
> It turned out that the fix for PR65249 causes this problem.
> The codes for stack protect can be inserted after some function
> call returning a value. That return value in R0 register could
> be clobbered with the fix for PR65249.
Interesting. Could this also be the cause for PR66312 and PR66563 after all?
Both actually occurred only after the patch for PR65249 was merged. In PR65979
(comment 8) [1], we already speculated which recent change introduced the issue
and I'd bet that the wrong code generated here is responsible for the
aforementioned issues as well as the weird behavior I have observed with grep
[2] as well.
> I think that the wrong code is worse than the ICE. I'd like
> to revert the patches of PR65249 and reopen that PR.
I agree. Please revert this fix as soon as possible as currently almost all
packages fail to build as Debian enables -fstack-protector-strong by default.
Adrian
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979#c8
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563#c46
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
2015-07-07 8:54 ` [Bug target/66780] " glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
@ 2015-07-07 11:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-07 12:29 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-07 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
2015-07-07 8:54 ` [Bug target/66780] " glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
2015-07-07 11:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-07 12:29 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-07 12:43 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-07 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Jul 7 12:29:16 2015
New Revision: 225512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66780
* config/sh/sh.md (symGOT_load): Revert a part of 2015-03-03 change for
target/65249.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.md
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-07 12:29 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-07 12:43 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-07 20:40 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-07 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #2)
> Could this also be the cause for PR66312 and PR66563 after all?
My 2 cents.
I've just revert the problematic part on trunk after usual test.
I'll revert it on 4.9 when the usual test is done and to 5 when
the branch reopens.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-07 12:43 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-07 20:40 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-10 9:50 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-07 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Jul 7 20:39:28 2015
New Revision: 225526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225526&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66780
* config/sh/sh.md (symGOT_load): Revert a part of 2015-03-03 change for
target/65249.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/config/sh/sh.md
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-07 20:40 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-10 9:50 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-11 9:10 ` glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-10 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Fri Jul 10 09:50:18 2015
New Revision: 225660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66780
* config/sh/sh.md (symGOT_load): Revert a part of 2015-03-03
change for target/65249.
Modified:
branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/config/sh/sh.md
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-10 9:50 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-11 9:10 ` glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
2015-07-26 16:37 ` glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
2015-07-27 9:57 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de @ 2015-07-11 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de> ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0)
> To reproduce:
>
> $ wget
> http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/procps/procps_3.3.10.orig.tar.xz
> $ tar xf procps_3.3.10.orig.tar.xz
> $ cd procps-3.3.10
> $ export CFLAGS="-g -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
> -Werror=format-security" ; export "CXXFLAGS=-g -fstack-protector-strong
> -Wformat -Werror=format-security" ; ./configure ; make
> $ ./ps/pscommand
> Signal 11 (SEGV) caught by lt-pscommand (procps-ng version 3.3.10).
> /root/procps/procps-3.3.10/ps/.libs/lt-pscommand:display.c:66: please report
> this bug
> Segmentation fault
> $
Alright, just re-tested this with gcc-4.9_4.9.3+sh4 which I built manually with
Kaz' patch applied. The segmentation fault is gone, at least for procps.
Will do further testing, just to be safe.
Adrian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-11 9:10 ` glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
@ 2015-07-26 16:37 ` glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
2015-07-27 9:57 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de @ 2015-07-26 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de> ---
I think it's safe to say this has been fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug target/66780] [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault
2015-07-06 15:32 [Bug target/66780] New: [4.9 Regression] Compiling with -fstack-protector-strong causes binary to segfault glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-26 16:37 ` glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
@ 2015-07-27 9:57 ` kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-27 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima <kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread