Fix various tests to use -no-pie linker flag when needed
Commit Message
Various test use test code written in i385 / x86_64 assembly that cannot
be used to create PIE executables. Therefore compilation of test programs
failed on systems where the compiler default is to create PIE executable.
To fix this, force -no-pie linker flag.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2018-08-28 Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz>
* gdb.arch/amd64-disp-step.exp: Use -no-pie linker flag
to enforce non-PIE executable.
* gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: Likewise.
* gdb.arch/amd64-invalid-stack-middle.exp: Likewise.
* gdb.arch/i386-float.exp: Likewise.
* gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp: Likewise.
* gdb.mi/mi-reg-undefined.exp: Likewise.
---
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 10 ++++++++++
gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-disp-step.exp | 3 ++-
gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp | 2 +-
gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/amd64-invalid-stack-middle.exp | 3 ++-
gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-float.exp | 2 +-
gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp | 2 +-
gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-reg-undefined.exp | 2 +-
7 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Comments
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> writes:
Jan> Various test use test code written in i385 / x86_64 assembly that cannot
Jan> be used to create PIE executables. Therefore compilation of test programs
Jan> failed on systems where the compiler default is to create PIE executable.
Jan> To fix this, force -no-pie linker flag.
I guess you're on an OS that enables PIE by default?
These tests don't seem to be linux- or gcc-specific.
Do you know how universal -no-pie is? My worry is that this would fix
the test for some people but break it for others.
Tom
On 2018-09-07 21:43, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> writes:
>
> Jan> Various test use test code written in i385 / x86_64 assembly that
> cannot
> Jan> be used to create PIE executables. Therefore compilation of test
> programs
> Jan> failed on systems where the compiler default is to create PIE
> executable.
>
> Jan> To fix this, force -no-pie linker flag.
>
> I guess you're on an OS that enables PIE by default?
I know recent-ish Ubuntus do that, I don't know if it's a patch specific
to that distro or if it's the default value in gcc that changed.
> These tests don't seem to be linux- or gcc-specific.
> Do you know how universal -no-pie is? My worry is that this would fix
> the test for some people but break it for others.
>
> Tom
If needed, we could add a new option understood by gdb_compile that adds
the right flag to achieve the result of -no-pie.
Simon
Hi,
I'm sorry for a long delay, I've been very, very busy lately.
Hopefully I'd have more time for GDB now...
On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:18 +0100, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2018-09-07 21:43, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > > > > > "Jan" == Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> writes:
> >
> > Jan> Various test use test code written in i385 / x86_64 assembly that
> > cannot
> > Jan> be used to create PIE executables. Therefore compilation of test
> > programs
> > Jan> failed on systems where the compiler default is to create PIE
> > executable.
> >
> > Jan> To fix this, force -no-pie linker flag.
> >
> > I guess you're on an OS that enables PIE by default?
>
> I know recent-ish Ubuntus do that, I don't know if it's a patch specific
> to that distro or if it's the default value in gcc that changed.
Neither I know. I'm using Debian Buster which seems to have -no-pie
by default too.
>
> > These tests don't seem to be linux- or gcc-specific.
> > Do you know how universal -no-pie is? My worry is that this would fix
> > the test for some people but break it for others.
> >
No, I don't know how universal -no-pie is. From what I have understood
from Simon (https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-08/msg00662.html),
out of the options available -no-pie is still the best bet.
> > Tom
>
> If needed, we could add a new option understood by gdb_compile that adds
> the right flag to achieve the result of -no-pie.
Indeed we can. Tom, would that be OK with you?
Best Jan
On 2018-10-14 05:59, Jan Vrany wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry for a long delay, I've been very, very busy lately.
> Hopefully I'd have more time for GDB now...
>
>
> On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 23:18 +0100, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 2018-09-07 21:43, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> > > > > > > "Jan" == Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> writes:
>> >
>> > Jan> Various test use test code written in i385 / x86_64 assembly that
>> > cannot
>> > Jan> be used to create PIE executables. Therefore compilation of test
>> > programs
>> > Jan> failed on systems where the compiler default is to create PIE
>> > executable.
>> >
>> > Jan> To fix this, force -no-pie linker flag.
>> >
>> > I guess you're on an OS that enables PIE by default?
>>
>> I know recent-ish Ubuntus do that, I don't know if it's a patch
>> specific
>> to that distro or if it's the default value in gcc that changed.
>
> Neither I know. I'm using Debian Buster which seems to have -no-pie
> by default too.
>
>>
>> > These tests don't seem to be linux- or gcc-specific.
>> > Do you know how universal -no-pie is? My worry is that this would fix
>> > the test for some people but break it for others.
>> >
>
> No, I don't know how universal -no-pie is. From what I have understood
> from Simon
> (https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-08/msg00662.html),
> out of the options available -no-pie is still the best bet.
gcc supports it, icc supports it [1], clang supports it starting at
version 6 according to my testing. I think this is universal enough
that we can use it. If somebody stumbles on a compiler that does not
understand -no-pie and they really need to use it for their testing,
they can quite easily add an option for gdb_compile. But for now, I
don't think it's worth the extra work.
[1] https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/523278
I tested the patch and amd64-disp-step.exp fails for me. When you
specify options to prepare_for_testing explicitly, you have to include
the "debug" option (if you do want debug symbols).
With this fix the patch LGTM.
Simon
>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> writes:
>> No, I don't know how universal -no-pie is. From what I have understood
>> from Simon
>> (https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-08/msg00662.html),
>> out of the options available -no-pie is still the best bet.
Simon> gcc supports it, icc supports it [1], clang supports it starting at
Simon> version 6 according to my testing. I think this is universal enough
Simon> that we can use it.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Tom
On 10/16/2018 11:18 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2018-10-14 05:59, Jan Vrany wrote:
>> No, I don't know how universal -no-pie is. From what I have understood
>> from Simon (https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-08/msg00662.html),
>> out of the options available -no-pie is still the best bet.
>
> gcc supports it, icc supports it [1], clang supports it starting at version 6 according to my testing. I think this is universal
> enough that we can use it. If somebody stumbles on a compiler that does not understand -no-pie and they really need to use it for
> their testing, they can quite easily add an option for gdb_compile.
Not sure it's that universal. See:
https://github.com/xd009642/tarpaulin/issues/7#issuecomment-317180523
For example, the gcc 4.8 I have handy (our minimum supported version) does
not support it:
$ /opt/gcc-4.8/bin/gcc /home/pedro/gdb/tests/main.c -o main -no-pie
gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-no-pie’
> But for now, I don't think it's worth the extra work.
I disagree.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
On 2018-10-17 11:47, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/16/2018 11:18 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 2018-10-14 05:59, Jan Vrany wrote:
>
>>> No, I don't know how universal -no-pie is. From what I have
>>> understood
>>> from Simon
>>> (https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-08/msg00662.html),
>>> out of the options available -no-pie is still the best bet.
>>
>> gcc supports it, icc supports it [1], clang supports it starting at
>> version 6 according to my testing. I think this is universal
>> enough that we can use it. If somebody stumbles on a compiler that
>> does not understand -no-pie and they really need to use it for
>> their testing, they can quite easily add an option for gdb_compile.
>
> Not sure it's that universal. See:
>
> https://github.com/xd009642/tarpaulin/issues/7#issuecomment-317180523
>
> For example, the gcc 4.8 I have handy (our minimum supported version)
> does
> not support it:
>
> $ /opt/gcc-4.8/bin/gcc /home/pedro/gdb/tests/main.c -o main -no-pie
> gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-no-pie’
Ah, I just assumed that gcc supported it since virtually forever, but
no.
>> But for now, I don't think it's worth the extra work.
>
> I disagree.
Given that new information, I agree with you disagreeing.
Simon
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+2018-08-28 Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz>
+
+ * gdb.arch/amd64-disp-step.exp: Use -no-pie linker flag
+ to enforce non-PIE executable.
+ * gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: Likewise.
+ * gdb.arch/amd64-invalid-stack-middle.exp: Likewise.
+ * gdb.arch/i386-float.exp: Likewise.
+ * gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp: Likewise.
+ * gdb.mi/mi-reg-undefined.exp: Likewise.
+
2018-08-23 Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
* gdb.dwarf2/dw2-ranges-func.c: New file.
@@ -25,9 +25,10 @@ if { ![istarget x86_64-*-* ] || ![is_lp64_target] } {
set newline "\[\r\n\]*"
+set opts {ldflags=-no-pie}
standard_testfile .S
-if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile] } {
+if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile $opts] } {
return -1
}
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
standard_testfile .s
-set opts {}
+set opts {ldflags=-no-pie}
if [info exists COMPILE] {
# make check RUNTESTFLAGS="gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp COMPILE=1"
@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@
# run twice, and we restart gdb before testing each different command to
# ensure that nothing is being cached.
-set opts {}
+set opts {ldflags=-no-pie}
+
standard_testfile .S
if { ![istarget x86_64-*-* ] || ![is_lp64_target] } {
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ standard_testfile .S
# some targets have leading underscores on assembly symbols.
set additional_flags [gdb_target_symbol_prefix_flags_asm]
-if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile [list debug $additional_flags]] } {
+if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile [list debug ldflags=-no-pie $additional_flags]] } {
return -1
}
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ if { ![istarget "i?86-*-*"] && ![istarget "x86_64-*-*"] } then {
standard_testfile
if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" \
- executable { debug }] != "" } {
+ executable { debug ldflags=-no-pie }] != "" } {
untested "failed to compile"
return -1
}
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ if [mi_gdb_start] {
standard_testfile .S
-if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
+if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug ldflags=-no-pie}] != "" } {
untested "failed to compile"
return -1
}