https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28725
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
Ever confir
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28729
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |mark at klomp dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29434
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard ---
Created attachment 14302
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14302&action=edit
dwarf_getscopes debug trace
Maybe the following would give us a clue about what is really happening. It
s
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28725
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28729
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29614
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29614
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
OK, so, this is with current git trunk.
Which version of gcc and glibc are you using?
Could you show (make V=1) the exact gcc argument line?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #8 from Mark Wielaard ---
Note that we'll need rpm-devel ima-evm-utils-devel openssl-devel rpm-sign to
test this (should go into elfutils.spec BuildRequires).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard ---
To make this slightly easier to review I applied the patch and rebased it to
current master. Pushed here:
https://code.wildebeest.org/git/user/mjw/elfutils/commit/?h=ima
--
You are receiving this mail be
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29714
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29498
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29434
--- Comment #10 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Pablo Galindo Salgado from comment #8)
> If you give me a patch adding print statements to libdw/dwarf_getscopes.c
> and libdw/libdw_visit_scopes.c I can give you the output.
See attachment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29695
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29711
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29719
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29571
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29767
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #6
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29767
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFI
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28891
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard ---
So a solution for people trying to do cross builds directly from git might
simply be to do a make dist first and then do a cross from that?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29434
--- Comment #16 from Mark Wielaard ---
Sorry this is a bit difficult to debug.
Would you be able to show the start of the log?
It should show how you are calling dwarf_getscopes.
I think I have found the RHEL7 glibc debug file. So I can matc
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29926
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29926
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28608
--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Martin Liska from comment #4)
> So it fails for:
> $ /home/marxin/Programming/elfutils/src/elflint --gnu
> /home/marxin/Programming/elfutils/tests/elfstrmerge
> section [17] '.rodata': merge f
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29571
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Martin Liska from comment #3)
> @Mark: Can you please push the patch?
No, please see comment #2 for various issues that need to be resolved first.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Yo
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30047
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30047
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-26
Assignee|unassig
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30072
--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Martin Liska from comment #0)
> Created attachment 14650 [details]
> Build log
>
> The test is pretty new and fails with:
>
> [ 30s] FAIL: run-addr2line-C-test.sh
> [ 30s] ==
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30072
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28873
--- Comment #8 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Aaron Merey from comment #7)
> This raises an interesting question: how do you calculate the number of
> symbols in .dynsym without using section headers?
>
> I figured there'd some kind of
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30077
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30077
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> These issues sometimes appear with -flto -Wlto-type-mismatch but not clear
> that's the case here.
Yes, but typedefs don't define new types, just alias types.
Als
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30077
--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #3)
> The struct is needed by libdwfl.h to prototype
>
> extern debuginfod_client *dwfl_get_debuginfod_client (Dwfl *dwfl);
>
> but that function is defined in de
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30077
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30047
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #14633|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30084
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30047
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30085
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30085
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard ---
I asked around and John DelSignore came up with the following fortran example:
= array.f95 =
program f_prog
integer*4, allocatable, target, dimension (:,:) :: big_array
integer, dimension
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29434
--- Comment #17 from Mark Wielaard ---
So the code here changed a little with this patch:
commit b7c7d8776ed46e2237d18fb15c6b72e83cfa259b
Author: Mark Wielaard
Date: Sun Jan 22 00:31:57 2023 +0100
libdw: Search for abstract origin in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29434
--- Comment #18 from Mark Wielaard ---
I could replicate a leak when there was an error looking up the inlined scopes,
so I submitted the patch to fix that:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/elfutils-devel/2023023901.1089881-1-m...@klomp.org/T/
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29434
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29472
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #5
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29176
--- Comment #10 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Jan-Benedict Glaw from comment #9)
> Is there already a decision on whether or not the tests should pass when
> there's no dbgsym package installed for libc?
The test should pass even withou
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29176
--- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard ---
Proposed patch:
https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/elfutils/patch/20230304213534.1448550-1-m...@klomp.org/
Did pass on the elfutils-debian-amd64 builder:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/bu
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30196
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
Resolut
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29176
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30251
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30272
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #3
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30221
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #13
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28873
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29696
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28495
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard ---
So as far as I understand this is now the three commits on top of
users/rgoldber/try-bz28204c:
https://sourceware.org/cgit/elfutils/log/?h=users/rgoldber/try-bz28204c
I find it slightly easier when patch
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #12 from Mark Wielaard ---
In config/profile.csh.in and config/profile.sh.in the prefix variable is
explicitly set and no longer unset. Is that deliberate?
In debuginfod_validate_imasig the file_data = malloc(data_len); depends on
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #13 from Mark Wielaard ---
The configure checks might need to check whether the rpm development headers
define the needed constants.
On an rhel8 system this gives:
checking for headerGet in -lrpm... yes
checking for imaevm_hash_a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #14 from Mark Wielaard ---
I think it is the user/distro packager who should decide which ima-certs to
ship. I don't think elfutils should come with ima-certs itself.
Why is there a "permissive" policy? What is the use case for th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #15 from Mark Wielaard ---
The basic idea having a collection of certs, and an signature for each file
that is transported with the fetch operation that will be checked against those
trusted certs is understandable.
But I must adm
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #17 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Ryan Goldberg from comment #16)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #12)
> > In config/profile.csh.in and config/profile.sh.in the prefix variable is
> > explicitly set and no longer un
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27501
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard ---
Apparently someone created a CVE for this bug:
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33294
Note that we don't consider this a security issue:
https://sourceware.org/cgit/elfutils/tree/SECURITY
Sinc
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30772
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #20 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Frank Ch. Eigler from comment #18)
> > Doesn't that give a false sense of "security"?
> > It still rejects some stuff, but doesn't really protect against "falsifying"
> > files, all a server
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28495
--- Comment #5 from Mark Wielaard ---
https://inbox.sourceware.org/elfutils-devel/20230823220211.1942430-1-m...@klomp.org/T/#u
https://code.wildebeest.org/git/user/mjw/elfutils/commit/?h=relr
With that eu-readelf -r /usr/lib64/libc.so.6 now g
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #22 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Ryan Goldberg from comment #21)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> > But isn't the idea of checking the IMA signatures that you don't have to
> > trust the server providing the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #24 from Mark Wielaard ---
BTW. How does this interact with the "section" queries?
If the server doesn't support "section" then the debuginfod-client fallback to
fetching "debuginfo" or "executable" should do the signature checkin
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #25 from Mark Wielaard ---
So I am looking at users/rgoldber/try-bz28204d but it isn't clear you want to
merge that in separate commits or squashed together. I am comparing to
users/rgoldber/try-bz28204c which I believe is the prev
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #26 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Ryan Goldberg from comment #23)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> > This still feels odd. Since you cannot distinguish between non-sig f36
> > package (okish?) and non-sig f38
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30729
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30729
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28495
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28204
--- Comment #28 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Ryan Goldberg from comment #27)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #24)
> > BTW. How does this interact with the "section" queries?
> Since these aren't ima verifiable anyways wdyt of
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30812
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30812
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30812
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25705
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Product|elfutils|web
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25710
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|general
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25726
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nobody at sourceware
dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25728
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25728
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wie
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25743
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #7 from Mark Wielaard ---
We need a way to generate symbol versions without having to use (top-level)
inline assembly. It appears GCC 10 will provide this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html
We shou
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25793
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #8 from Mark Wielaard ---
I proposed a patch to use the new gcc 10 symver attribute to define symbol
versioning:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/elfutils-devel/2020q2/002606.html
This should help with using LTO since it makes th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Mark Wi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #13 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #11)
> (In reply to kloczek from comment #10)
> > > I would add a configure option --enable-lto that will append -flto to
> > > {C,LD}FLAGS.
> >
> > Please don't d
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25831
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-16
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25832
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #15 from Mark Wielaard ---
Thanks for that setup. It allows me to play a bit more with LTO.
One commit to help with one issue has been pushed already:
commit 39f28eaf8c821d71d57ffc759655ec4168d0bead
Author: Mark Wielaard
Date:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #16 from Mark Wielaard ---
Various self tests fail when everything is build with LTO.
In particular various files contain .gnu.lto_ sections with SHF_EXCLUDE set.
This is an interesting flag since it is treated as a generic sectio
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #17 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #16)
> Various self tests fail when everything is build with LTO.
> [...]
> Another issue is that ET_REL files don't contain normal DWARF .debug_
> sections, but .g
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #18 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #17)
> With this and the SHF_EXCLUDE patch there are only 2 more test failures,
> test-nlist and run-varlocs-self.sh, which look like they can be solved by be
> a b
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25838
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25831
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #19 from Mark Wielaard ---
The following now works with current git master:
$ export AR=gcc-ar RANLIB=gcc-ranlib NM=gcc-nm
$ autoreconf -f -v -i
$ ./configure --enable-maintainer-mode CFLAGS="-O2 -g -flto
-flto-partition=none -Wno
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
--- Comment #22 from Mark Wielaard ---
kloczek, re comment #20 and comment #21, is that with the latest git master
sources? It looks like it is missing several code and testsuite fixes. In
particular are you sure you have the following patches
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24498
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|0.176: isn't LTO ready |0.179: isn't LTO ready
--
You are re
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26043
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26043
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to devel.origin from comment #2)
> The debug info is in the .build-id/ dir: ../../demo/build/.build-id/ab/...
>
> Seems consistent with what the comment says. Should I make a real test
> example
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25838
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
Sorry, I cannot replicate even when building elfutils with CC=afl-gcc, with or
without AFL_HARDEN=1. Could you provide more information on how exactly you
configure, build and run.
--
You are receiving t
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25227
--- Comment #10 from Mark Wielaard ---
Proposed patch:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/elfutils-devel/2020q2/002713.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #7 from Mark Wielaard ---
So there are two ideas here:
- Split --disable-debuginfod which currently disables building
debuginfod (the server), libdebuginfod (the library) and
debuginfod-find (the helper binaries) in two:
--d
1 - 100 of 342 matches
Mail list logo
