[Bug 1233520] New: avr-ld: warning: -z relro ignored
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 Bug ID: 1233520 Summary: avr-ld: warning: -z relro ignored Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Development Assignee: screening-team-bugs@suse.de Reporter: jslaby@suse.com QA Contact: qa-bugs@suse.de Target Milestone: --- Found By: --- Blocker: --- I am not sure if I do something wrong, but if I run avr-gcc -> avr-ld on anything, I get: $ avr-gcc -x c /dev/null -o /dev/null /usr/lib64/gcc/avr/14/ld: warning: -z relro ignored More real example: $ avr-ld -o avr avr.c.o -mavr5 avr-ld: warning: -z relro ignored It's likely turned on for avr internally which is a bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|screening-team-bugs@suse.de |matz@suse.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c1 --- Comment #1 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> --- That is an outcome of downstream patch ld-relro.diff, it seems: --- ld/lexsup.c.orig 2024-08-04 01:00:00.000000000 +0200 +++ ld/lexsup.c 2024-08-06 16:02:35.554864901 +0200 @@ -772,6 +772,9 @@ parse_args (unsigned argc, char **argv) } } + optarg = "relro"; + ldemul_handle_option ('z'); It should not be enabled for avr, I assume? As in: --- binutils.spec (revision 173) +++ binutils.spec (working copy) @@ -257,7 +257,9 @@ %patch -P 4 %patch -P 5 %patch -P 6 +%if "%{TARGET}" != "avr" %patch -P 8 +%endif -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c2 --- Comment #2 from Michael Matz <matz@suse.com> --- I'd be open to a submit request doing that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c3 --- Comment #3 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #2)
I'd be open to a submit request doing that.
Or should the patch be dropped completely, as I see: $ ld --help|grep relro -z relro Create RELRO program header (default) due to ld/lexsup.c: #if DEFAULT_LD_Z_RELRO fprintf (file, _("\ -z relro Create RELRO program header (default)\n")); fprintf (file, _("\ -z norelro Don't create RELRO program header\n")); #else fprintf (file, _("\ -z relro Create RELRO program header\n")); fprintf (file, _("\ -z norelro Don't create RELRO program header (default)\n")); #endif and ld/configure.tgt: case "${target}" in frv-*-* | hppa*-*-* | ia64-*-* | mips*-*-*) # Don't enable -z relro by default since many relro tests fail on these # targets: # FAIL: strip -z relro (relro1) # FAIL: strip -z relro -shared (relro1) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro (relro1) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro -shared (relro1) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro (tdata1) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tdata1) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro (tdata2) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tdata2) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro (tdata3) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tdata3) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tbss1) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tbss2) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tbss3) ;; *-*-linux*) if test ${ac_default_ld_z_relro} = unset; then ac_default_ld_z_relro=1 fi ;; esac If the behaviour the patch introduces should not be dropped for reasons I might not see, the patch should be dropped regardless and --enable-relro passed to configure instead. So your call what you want -- I can create a SR then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c4 --- Comment #4 from Michael Matz <matz@suse.com> --- True. Ultimately the patch should be dropped. If you can verify that you get the same testsuite FAILs on our architectures with and without the patch (which touches some testcases), that's the best way forward. (I think the simplest is to do two builds in obs, and compare the output of 'grep FAIL | sort' on the build log). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c5 --- Comment #5 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> --- it is now dropped in: home:jirislaby:branches:devel:gcc/binutils The patch also fixes some tests. So maybe this is an upstreamable ham part of the patch? Let's see how that goes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c6 --- Comment #6 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> --- Created attachment 878717 --> https://bugzilla.suse.com/attachment.cgi?id=878717&action=edit script to compare -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c7 --- Comment #7 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> --- Created attachment 878718 --> https://bugzilla.suse.com/attachment.cgi?id=878718&action=edit diff -- output of the script For some reason, many FAILs are gone, none is introduced. I am not sure -- did I make a mistake somewhere? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c8 --- Comment #8 from Michael Matz <matz@suse.com> --- I can't say, your project seems to be gone. But that number of missing FAILs seems definitely fishy. Are you using different _multibuild settings and hence build different flavors compared to devel:gcc/binutils? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c9 Michael Matz <matz@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #9 from Michael Matz <matz@suse.com> --- Hmm, whatever, let's ignore that. Thanks for the SR. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c10 --- Comment #10 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #8)
I can't say, your project seems to be gone. But that number of missing FAILs seems definitely fishy. Are you using different _multibuild settings and hence build different flavors compared to devel:gcc/binutils?
No, when I removed 'grep FAIL', it properly showed diffs of all flavors. So the FAILs were really gone. If you really wanted, you could reintroduce the project, this time, one revision back from devel:gcc, so the comparison would be done in the opposite way. (Or you can compare devel:gcc against factory, actually.) But it all looked good ;). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c11 --- Comment #11 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> --- BTW I still had this in the terminal: === ld Summary === -# of expected passes 70 -# of unexpected failures 326 +# of expected passes 406 # of expected failures 18 -# of untested testcases 25 +# of untested testcases 24 # of unsupported tests 211 -./ld-new -znorelro 2.43.1.20240828-539 +./ld-new 2.43.1.20240828-541 This is for rx-unknown-elf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c14 --- Comment #14 from Maintenance Automation <maint-coord+maintenance-robot@suse.de> --- SUSE-RU-2024:4415-1: An update that contains two features and has one fix can now be installed. URL: https://www.suse.com/support/update/announcement/2024/suse-ru-20244415-1 Category: recommended (moderate) Bug References: 1233520 Jira References: PED-10254, PED-10306 Maintenance Incident: [SUSE:Maintenance:36797](https://smelt.suse.de/incident/36797/) Sources used: openSUSE Leap 15.5 (src): cross-aarch64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-hppa-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-sparc-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-x86_64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-sparc64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-avr-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-xtensa-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-hppa64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-rx-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-spu-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-ppc-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-riscv64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-s390x-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-m68k-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-ppc64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-ppc64le-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-ia64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-arm-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-epiphany-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-mips-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-i386-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-s390-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 openSUSE Leap 15.6 (src): cross-aarch64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-hppa-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-sparc-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-x86_64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-sparc64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-avr-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-xtensa-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-hppa64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-rx-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-spu-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-ppc-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-riscv64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-s390x-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-m68k-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-ppc64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-pru-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-ppc64le-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-bpf-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-ia64-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-arm-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-epiphany-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-mips-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-i386-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1, cross-s390-binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 Basesystem Module 15-SP5 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 Basesystem Module 15-SP6 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 Development Tools Module 15-SP5 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 Development Tools Module 15-SP6 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Package Hub 15 15-SP5 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Package Hub 15 15-SP6 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15 SP2 LTSS (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing LTSS 15 SP3 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing ESPOS 15 SP4 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing LTSS 15 SP4 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 15 SP4 LTSS (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP2 LTSS (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP3 LTSS (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 15 SP4 LTSS (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP2 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP3 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications 15 SP4 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Manager Proxy 4.3 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Manager Retail Branch Server 4.3 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Manager Server 4.3 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 SUSE Enterprise Storage 7.1 (src): binutils-2.43-150100.7.52.1 NOTE: This line indicates an update has been released for the listed product(s). At times this might be only a partial fix. If you have questions please reach out to maintenance coordination. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com