From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67274 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2016 23:27:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 67258 invoked by uid 89); 20 Oct 2016 23:27:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=representative X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 23:27:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C74FFC056792; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 23:27:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9KNRVC0021608; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:27:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [rfc] PR 20569, segv in follow_exec To: Luis Machado , Sandra Loosemore , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <57F6D57D.8070603@codesourcery.com> <50f4c7d8-44e3-4351-0b54-9cbaef64717a@codesourcery.com> <14a10c11-cda1-945c-560a-ee619fe59101@redhat.com> <91ae2166-15c4-d356-5b50-ecdd3402740d@codesourcery.com> <26518bd3-f378-74d2-bc26-fbdfd2a95f09@codesourcery.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <5ee7b45e-2c00-8c6b-f77c-b2ec79e2a64f@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 23:27:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <26518bd3-f378-74d2-bc26-fbdfd2a95f09@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00636.txt.bz2 On 10/19/2016 09:19 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > I was thinking of a way to test this and decided to exercise everything > against an invalid sysroot (by always passing 'set sysroot > ' and i noticed quite a few segmentation faults > ocurring in 10+ tests. > > Now we know things are broken and we know how to show that, but i'm > wondering if we want to re-run tests with an invalid sysroot or if the > manual testing with a sysroot override is enough. I think we should have some representative test that always runs, without requiring manual testing. > > I could add a loop to each test that is failing, but, though that > exercises and shows the failure, it sounds like a waste of time to > repeat those tests. Yeah. > > I could also pick one candidate and isolate that in a test, but i'm not > yet sure if all those 10+ failures fail for the same exact reason. > > Suggestions? I think it is sufficient to have one representative test for each reasons (or reasons). Whether that is a new separate testcase or whether we reuse some existing testcase, I guess depends on how complicated the test needs to be. If trivial, maybe go for separate, focused test. If a lot of test set up is needed, e.g., to get the inferior to the state that triggers the bug), might make sense to reuse some existing testcase. > > These are the failing tests: > > gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp > gdb.base/execl-update-breakpoints.exp > gdb.base/foll-exec-mode.exp > gdb.base/foll-exec.exp > gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp > gdb.base/pie-execl.exp > gdb.linespec/explicit.exp > gdb.multi/bkpt-multi-exec.exp > gdb.python/py-finish-breakpoint.exp > gdb.threads/execl.exp > gdb.threads/non-ldr-exc-1.exp > gdb.threads/non-ldr-exc-2.exp > gdb.threads/non-ldr-exc-3.exp > gdb.threads/non-ldr-exc-4.exp > gdb.threads/thread-execl.exp The obvious pattern here is that these are tests that exec. :-) -- Thanks, Pedro Alves