[v3,1/2] elf,nptl: Add -z lazy to some more tests

  Some toolchains, such as that used on Gentoo Hardened, set -z now out of
the box.  This trips up a couple of tests.
---
Hi,

This is re-roll of the following patch series:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20230307003222.2810662-1-arsen@aarsen.me/
https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20230302112519.914641-1-arsen@gentoo.org/

Changes from v2:
- Split off the +$(objpfx)resolvfail.out: $(objpfx)testobj1.so change
  into its own commit.

Changes from v1:
- Dropped -z norelro.  This turned out to be unnecessary after
  Adhemervals removal of --with-default-link and linker script
  machinery:
  https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?series=17843
  See: https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/86fsakz5mr.fsf@gentoo.org
  for an explanation of what caused the need for norelro.  That fix was
  misguided, due to a previous error on my part, too.
  I applied this patch on top of that patchset and it would appear to
  resolve all related failures.
  The above is not applied to Git yet, but should be before this patch
  is.

 elf/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
 elf/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
  

* Arsen Arsenović:

> Some toolchains, such as that used on Gentoo Hardened, set -z now out of
> the box.  This trips up a couple of tests.
> ---
> Hi,
>
> This is re-roll of the following patch series:
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20230307003222.2810662-1-arsen@aarsen.me/
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20230302112519.914641-1-arsen@gentoo.org/
>
> Changes from v2:
> - Split off the +$(objpfx)resolvfail.out: $(objpfx)testobj1.so change
>   into its own commit.
>
> Changes from v1:
> - Dropped -z norelro.  This turned out to be unnecessary after
>   Adhemervals removal of --with-default-link and linker script
>   machinery:
>   https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?series=17843
>   See: https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/86fsakz5mr.fsf@gentoo.org
>   for an explanation of what caused the need for norelro.  That fix was
>   misguided, due to a previous error on my part, too.
>   I applied this patch on top of that patchset and it would appear to
>   resolve all related failures.
>   The above is not applied to Git yet, but should be before this patch
>   is.
>
>  elf/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>  elf/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

The patches look okay to me, but would you please resend them with
Signed-off-by: (to mark this as a contribution under DCO)?  I had the
FSF records checked, and they don't have a glibc copyright assignment
from you, as far as we can tell.  Sorry for the hassle!

Thanks,
Florian
  

Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:

> * Arsen Arsenović:
>
>> Some toolchains, such as that used on Gentoo Hardened, set -z now out of
>> the box.  This trips up a couple of tests.
>> ---
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is re-roll of the following patch series:
>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20230307003222.2810662-1-arsen@aarsen.me/
>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20230302112519.914641-1-arsen@gentoo.org/
>>
>> Changes from v2:
>> - Split off the +$(objpfx)resolvfail.out: $(objpfx)testobj1.so change
>>   into its own commit.
>>
>> Changes from v1:
>> - Dropped -z norelro.  This turned out to be unnecessary after
>>   Adhemervals removal of --with-default-link and linker script
>>   machinery:
>>   https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?series=17843
>>   See: https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/86fsakz5mr.fsf@gentoo.org
>>   for an explanation of what caused the need for norelro.  That fix was
>>   misguided, due to a previous error on my part, too.
>>   I applied this patch on top of that patchset and it would appear to
>>   resolve all related failures.
>>   The above is not applied to Git yet, but should be before this patch
>>   is.
>>
>>  elf/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>  elf/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> The patches look okay to me, but would you please resend them with
> Signed-off-by: (to mark this as a contribution under DCO)?  I had the
> FSF records checked, and they don't have a glibc copyright assignment
> from you, as far as we can tell.  Sorry for the hassle!

Yes, I never signed the copyright papers for the libc.

I intended to undergo that process, which is why I didn't add signoffs
initially (since they'd indicate that I don't intend to sign over
copyright when I do), so I figured I should wait for advice.

How should I proceed?

Thanks in advance.

PS: I noticed that I forgot to drop `,nptl' from the subject line.  The
NPTL bits of this patch are gone now.

>
> Thanks,
> Florian
  

* Arsen Arsenović:

> Yes, I never signed the copyright papers for the libc.
>
> I intended to undergo that process, which is why I didn't add signoffs
> initially (since they'd indicate that I don't intend to sign over
> copyright when I do), so I figured I should wait for advice.
>
> How should I proceed?

It's up to you.  You can try the FSF paperwork process, it should be
fully digital nowadays.  And we can apply the patch as a regular FSF
contribution once the paperwork is complete.

Or we can take a DCO contribution from you today.  We don't need the
assignment paperwork anymore.

> PS: I noticed that I forgot to drop `,nptl' from the subject line.  The
> NPTL bits of this patch are gone now.

Ah, okay.

Thanks,
Florian
  

Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:

> * Arsen Arsenović:
>
>> Yes, I never signed the copyright papers for the libc.
>>
>> I intended to undergo that process, which is why I didn't add signoffs
>> initially (since they'd indicate that I don't intend to sign over
>> copyright when I do), so I figured I should wait for advice.
>>
>> How should I proceed?
>
> It's up to you.  You can try the FSF paperwork process, it should be
> fully digital nowadays.  And we can apply the patch as a regular FSF
> contribution once the paperwork is complete.

My previous experiences were rather prompt (usually done by the time I'm
done with a patchset - not the case here due to the triviality, of
course).  Is
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
the right form?  This is the one I've used for gcc et al, to cover
current and future changes of any nature.

> Or we can take a DCO contribution from you today.  We don't need the
> assignment paperwork anymore.
>
>> PS: I noticed that I forgot to drop `,nptl' from the subject line.  The
>> NPTL bits of this patch are gone now.
>
> Ah, okay.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
  

* Arsen Arsenović:

> Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> * Arsen Arsenović:
>>
>>> Yes, I never signed the copyright papers for the libc.
>>>
>>> I intended to undergo that process, which is why I didn't add signoffs
>>> initially (since they'd indicate that I don't intend to sign over
>>> copyright when I do), so I figured I should wait for advice.
>>>
>>> How should I proceed?
>>
>> It's up to you.  You can try the FSF paperwork process, it should be
>> fully digital nowadays.  And we can apply the patch as a regular FSF
>> contribution once the paperwork is complete.
>
> My previous experiences were rather prompt (usually done by the time I'm
> done with a patchset - not the case here due to the triviality, of
> course).  Is
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
> the right form?  This is the one I've used for gcc et al, to cover
> current and future changes of any nature.

<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/CopyrightFSF> also links to this
form, so I think it's the right one.

Thanks,
Florian
  

Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:

> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/CopyrightFSF> also links to this
> form, so I think it's the right one.

I sent this form earlier today.  Will keep you posted.

Thanks, have a lovely night.

> Thanks,
> Florian
  

* Arsen Arsenović:

> PS: I noticed that I forgot to drop `,nptl' from the subject line.  The
> NPTL bits of this patch are gone now.

I received word that the FSF has completed the paperwork, so I fixed
that and pushed your two patches.

Thanks,
Florian
  

Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:

> * Arsen Arsenović:
>
>> PS: I noticed that I forgot to drop `,nptl' from the subject line.  The
>> NPTL bits of this patch are gone now.
>
> I received word that the FSF has completed the paperwork, so I fixed
> that and pushed your two patches.

Lovely, thanks!

Have a great day.

> Thanks,
> Florian