[Bug ports/25672] New: nptl/tst-mutex8-static and nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static failing on sparc64 on Linux

[Bug ports/25672] New: nptl/tst-mutex8-static and nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static failing on sparc64 on Linux

[glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672

            Bug ID: 25672
           Summary: nptl/tst-mutex8-static and nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static
                    failing on sparc64 on Linux
           Product: glibc
           Version: 2.31
               URL: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=glibc&a
                    rch=sparc64&ver=2.31-0experimental0&stamp=1584003885&r
                    aw=0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: ports
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
                CC: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org, carlos at redhat dot com,
                    jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com, matorola at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---
            Target: sparc*-*-*

With 2.31, the number of testsuite failures on Linux/sparc64 has dropped
dramatically to just three failures. One of the failures left is
nptl/tst-mutex8-static and nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static, for a full log see:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=glibc&arch=sparc64&ver=2.31-0experimental0&stamp=1584003885&raw=0

Are these failures which can be safely ignored or do they indicate a larger
problem?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ports/25672] nptl/tst-mutex8-static and nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static failing on sparc64 on Linux

[adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672

--- Comment #1 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
The issue seems that libgcc is in an infinite loop trying to unwind the
canceled thread:

(gdb) thread apply all bt

Thread 3 (LWP 421806):
#0  binary_search_single_encoding_fdes (pc=0x110343 <kill+35>, ob=0x2e) at
/home/azanella/toolchain/src/gcc/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c:936
#1  search_object (ob=ob@entry=0x2a9c18 <object>, pc=pc@entry=0x110343
<kill+35>) at /home/azanella/toolchain/src/gcc/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c:1005
#2  0x0000000000183dc8 in _Unwind_Find_registered_FDE
(bases=0xfff8000100806448, pc=0x110343 <kill+35>) at
/home/azanella/toolchain/src/gcc/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c:1054
#3  _Unwind_Find_FDE (pc=0x110343 <kill+35>,
bases=bases@entry=0xfff8000100806448) at
/home/azanella/toolchain/src/gcc/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde-dip.c:458
#4  0x000000000017fd54 in uw_frame_state_for
(context=context@entry=0xfff80001008060f0, fs=fs@entry=0xfff8000100805570) at
/home/azanella/toolchain/src/gcc/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:1249
#5  0x00000000001816dc in _Unwind_ForcedUnwind_Phase2
(exc=exc@entry=0xfff8000100807d70, context=context@entry=0xfff80001008060f0) at
/home/azanella/toolchain/src/gcc/libgcc/unwind.inc:155
#6  0x0000000000181d04 in _Unwind_ForcedUnwind (exc=0xfff8000100807d70,
stop=stop@entry=0x10a7a0 <unwind_stop>,
stop_argument=stop_argument@entry=0xfff8000100806a20) at
/home/azanella/toolchain/src/gcc/libgcc/unwind.inc:207
#7  0x000000000010a8e8 in __pthread_unwind (buf=0xfff8000100806a20) at
unwind.c:121
#8  0x00000000001097d0 in __do_cancel () at ./pthreadP.h:311
#9  sigcancel_handler (sig=<optimized out>, si=0xfff8000100806700,
ctx=0xfff8000100806700) at nptl-init.c:162
#10 <signal handler called>
#11 0x000000000010709c in futex_wait_cancelable (private=<optimized out>,
expected=0, futex_word=0x2a9c7c <c+44>) at ../sysdeps/nptl/futex-internal.h:183
#12 __pthread_cond_wait_common (abstime=0x0, clockid=0, mutex=0x7feffffeaf8,
cond=0x2a9c50 <c>) at pthread_cond_wait.c:508
#13 __pthread_cond_wait (cond=cond@entry=0x2a9c50 <c>, mutex=0x7feffffeaf8) at
pthread_cond_wait.c:638
#14 0x0000000000101114 in tf (arg=0x1) at ../sysdeps/pthread/tst-mutex8.c:74
#15 0x0000000000103a78 in start_thread (arg=0xfff8000100807900) at
pthread_create.c:473
#16 0x000000000013666c in __thread_start () at
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64/clone.S:77
Backtrace stopped: previous frame identical to this frame (corrupt stack?)

Thread 1 (LWP 421802):
#0  0x0000000000104ee4 in __pthread_clockjoin_ex (threadid=14,
thread_return=0xe, clockid=<optimized out>, abstime=0xe, block=<optimized out>)
at pthread_join_common.c:145
#1  0x0000000000000016 in ?? ()
Backtrace stopped: previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?)

The other issues (nptl/tst-cond8-static, nptl/tst-cancel24-static) seems to
follow the same pattern. I am not sure if this is code-generation issue (since
the dynamic linked test does not fail) or some missing directive.

I thought it might be something related to b33e946fbb1659d2c5937 (sparc: Move
sigreturn stub to assembly) due to some missing CFI directive that is messing
with libgcc unwind. I tried to use a C implementation that -fexception and
-funwind-asynchronous-table, but it didn't change the outcome.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ports/25672] nptl/tst-mutex8-static and nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static failing on sparc64 on Linux

[aurelien at aurel32 dot net]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672

Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |aurelien at aurel32 dot net

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ports/25672] nptl/tst-mutex8-static and nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static failing on sparc64 on Linux

[adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672

Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #2 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
It is the same issue from BZ#31244, where the rewrite done by
b33e946fbb1659d2c5937c4dd756a7c49a132dff was not fully correct regarding CFI
annotation.  I will send a similar fix as proposed to fix the sparc32 issue:

diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64/sigreturn_stub.S
b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64/sigreturn_stub.S
index 12af289375..3134337e25 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64/sigreturn_stub.S
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sparc/sparc64/sigreturn_stub.S
@@ -23,7 +23,10 @@

    [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/27/465  */

-ENTRY (__rt_sigreturn_stub)
+   nop
+   nop
+
+ENTRY_NOCFI (__rt_sigreturn_stub)
        mov     __NR_rt_sigreturn, %g1
        ta      0x6d
-END (__rt_sigreturn_stub)
+END_NOCFI (__rt_sigreturn_stub)

It fixes the regression I saw on sparc64:

FAIL: nptl/tst-cancel24-static
FAIL: nptl/tst-cond8-static
FAIL: nptl/tst-mutex8-static
FAIL: nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static
FAIL: nptl/tst-mutexpi9

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 31244 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ports/25672] nptl/tst-mutex8-static and nptl/tst-mutexpi8-static failing on sparc64 on Linux

[sam at gentoo dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25672

Sam James <sam at gentoo dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sam at gentoo dot org

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.