GNU bug report logs - #30394
'posix_spawn' glibc 2.26 race condition fires under qemu-binfmt

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 30394 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 30394 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
To: ng0 <at> n0.is, guix-devel <at> gnu.org, <bug-guix <at> gnu.org>
Subject: ARM compilation via qemu binfmt - Assertion failure
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:42:38 +0100

Hi ng0,

On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 10:33:56 +0000
ng0 <at> n0.is wrote:

> recently I've read about slow but native compiling of ARM on qemu.

Unfortunately, there's a (pretty reproducible) problem with it.

guix-master/guix $ ./pre-inst-env guix system disk-image --system=armhf-linux -e "(@ (gnu system install) installation-os)"
[... building grub-2.02 ...]
phase `configure' succeeded after 821.8 seconds
starting phase `patch-generated-file-shebangs'
patch-makefile-SHELL: ./po/Makefile: changing `SHELL' from `/bin/sh' to `/gnu/st[...]
phase `patch-generated-file-shebangs' succeeded after 14.6 seconds
starting phase `build'
bison -d -p grub_script_yy -b grub_script ./grub-core/script/parser.y
flex -o grub_script.yy.c --header-file=grub_script.yy.h ./grub-core/script/yylex[...]
bison: ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c:360: __spawnix: Assertion `ec >= 0' failed

This is only fixed in glibc 2.27 (not in core-updates).

The fix is:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22273
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c
index dea1650..f02ac19 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c
@@ -365,9 +365,15 @@ __spawnix (pid_t * pid, const char *file,
   if (new_pid > 0)
     {
       ec = args.err;
-      assert (ec >= 0);
       if (ec != 0)
-         __waitpid (new_pid, NULL, 0);
+       {
+         /* It handles the unlikely case where the auxiliary vfork process
+            is killed before calling _exit or execve.  */
+         int status;
+         __waitpid (new_pid, &status, 0);
+         if (WIFSIGNALED (status))
+           ec = 0;
+       }
     }
   else
     ec = -new_pid;

Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com>
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Cc: guix-devel <at> gnu.org, bug-guix <at> gnu.org, ng0 <at> n0.is
Subject: Re: ARM compilation via qemu binfmt - Assertion failure
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:45:18 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org> writes:

> This is only fixed in glibc 2.27 (not in core-updates).

Should we upgrade glibc in core-updates, then?  Or is it better to do it
in the next core-updates cycle, to avoid still more unexpected breakage?

-- 
Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #11 received at 30394 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel <at> gnu.org, Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>,
 30394 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ng0 <at> n0.is
Subject: Re: bug#30394: ARM compilation via qemu binfmt - Assertion failure
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:07:28 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 12:45:18AM +0100, Chris Marusich wrote:
> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org> writes:
> 
> > This is only fixed in glibc 2.27 (not in core-updates).
> 
> Should we upgrade glibc in core-updates, then?  Or is it better to do it
> in the next core-updates cycle, to avoid still more unexpected breakage?

It's too late in this cycle. Upgrading glibc would require a full
rebuild and would introduce new failures.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>
To: Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel <at> gnu.org, Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>,
 bug-guix <at> gnu.org, ng0 <at> n0.is
Subject: Re: ARM compilation via qemu binfmt - Assertion failure
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:53:32 +0100

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 12:45:18AM +0100, Chris Marusich wrote:
> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org> writes:
> 
> > This is only fixed in glibc 2.27 (not in core-updates).
> 
> Should we upgrade glibc in core-updates, then?  Or is it better to do it
> in the next core-updates cycle, to avoid still more unexpected breakage?

I think we should not update packages deep in the tree unless there is
a security patch. What we have now is well tested.

Pj.


-- 

Message #17 received at 30394 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Cc: guix-devel <at> gnu.org, 30394 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, ng0 <at> n0.is
Subject: Re: bug#30394: ARM compilation via qemu binfmt - Assertion failure
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:35:43 +0100

Hello,

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org> skribis:

> Unfortunately, there's a (pretty reproducible) problem with it.
>
> guix-master/guix $ ./pre-inst-env guix system disk-image --system=armhf-linux -e "(@ (gnu system install) installation-os)"
> [... building grub-2.02 ...]
> phase `configure' succeeded after 821.8 seconds
> starting phase `patch-generated-file-shebangs'
> patch-makefile-SHELL: ./po/Makefile: changing `SHELL' from `/bin/sh' to `/gnu/st[...]
> phase `patch-generated-file-shebangs' succeeded after 14.6 seconds
> starting phase `build'
> bison -d -p grub_script_yy -b grub_script ./grub-core/script/parser.y
> flex -o grub_script.yy.c --header-file=grub_script.yy.h ./grub-core/script/yylex[...]
> bison: ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c:360: __spawnix: Assertion `ec >= 0' failed

[...]

> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22273
> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c
> index dea1650..f02ac19 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c
> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/spawni.c
> @@ -365,9 +365,15 @@ __spawnix (pid_t * pid, const char *file,
>    if (new_pid > 0)
>      {
>        ec = args.err;
> -      assert (ec >= 0);
>        if (ec != 0)

Note that this is only a problem for code that uses the ‘posix_spawn’
interface, such as Bison in the example above.

In practice that interface is rarely used, which is probably why I never
hit that assertion before.

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.