Bug 1772935
Summary: | gold segfaults when linking innoextract | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dan Horák <dan> |
Component: | binutils | Assignee: | Nick Clifton <nickc> |
Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 30 | CC: | aoliva, dvlasenk, fweimer, jakub, jcajka, kparal, nickc |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | ppc64le | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2020-05-26 17:53:43 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1071880 |
Description
Dan Horák
2019-11-15 16:21:02 UTC
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #0) Hi Dan, > when building the innoextract package with the gold linker (enabled by > default), then it fails because gold segfaults. I am unable to reproduce this bug, but I am testing on an x86_64 F30 installation. Is there any chance that this bug might be ppc64le specific ? Cheers Nick Yes, this should be ppc64le (or ppc*) specific. Let me know if you need access. Hi Dan, I found a ppc64le machine and rebuilt innoextract-1.8-1.fc30.ppc64le (with that git reversion applied and definitely using gold as the linker) and it worked! This was inside a mock F30 ppc64le environment running on ppc64le-test.fedorainfracloud.org. One thing that does occur to me. According to the log in the description of this bug, the core was produced by the liblto_plugin. This plugin is actually part of the gcc package, not the binutils package. So maybe, just maybe, this is a gcc bug. (FYI the version of gcc in the mock chroot I was using is: gcc-9.2.1-1.fc30.ppc64l). In the past though, problems with gold and this plugin have turned out to be problems with gold itself, and in particular its support (or lack thereof) for multi-threading. So maybe gcc is blameless. I assume that you have switched back to ld.bfd as a workaround. Is this proving to be problematic in any way ? The reason for asking is that gold itself is not really being maintained upstream, and so I am hoping to deprecate it in Fedora at some point in the future. Cheers Nick I think we have a pattern for the crash, ld.gold segfaults on P9 systems (my own and tested on another), but runs well on P8 (ppc64le-test and another VM). Which makes the crash even more interesting :-) But overall I think the workaround is simple (use ld.bfd) and given ld.gold isn't being actively developed any more, so it's a low priority issue. (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #4) > I think we have a pattern for the crash, ld.gold segfaults on P9 systems (my > own and tested on another), but runs well on P8 (ppc64le-test and another > VM). Which makes the crash even more interesting :-) This is strongly suggestive of a compiler bug. As far as I am aware neither gold nor the lto plugin uses any kind of hand written assembler, so the most likely cause for an architecture specific problem like this is mis-compiled code. But as you say, this can be considered a low priority. This message is a reminder that Fedora 30 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 30 on 2020-05-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '30'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 30 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 30 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2020-05-26. Fedora 30 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |