Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Sep 2020 20:40:47 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 19 16:40:47 2020 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48219 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1kJjf5-0000Di-6H for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 16:40:47 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:49312) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJjf4-0000Db-4j for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 16:40:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41638) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJjf3-0003ox-99 for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 16:40:45 -0400 Received: from defaultvalue.org ([45.33.119.55]:37508) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJjf1-00065X-Fn for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 16:40:44 -0400 Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: rlb@HIDDEN) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4809420147 for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:40:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E30BB14E072; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:40:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> To: bug-guile@HIDDEN Subject: Re: ports.test "non-revealed port is closed" breaks other tests In-Reply-To: <87d02h5zlt.fsf@HIDDEN> References: <87ft7d601y.fsf@HIDDEN> <87d02h5zlt.fsf@HIDDEN> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:40:40 -0500 Message-ID: <87a6xl5wl3.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=45.33.119.55; envelope-from=rlb@HIDDEN; helo=defaultvalue.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/19 15:25:46 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> writes: > ...and I'd have to think about it more carefully, but if dropping > the close-fdes call would completely prevent any subsequent test from > re-using the fd unsafely before the lingering port is collected, then > perhaps that's one potential fix. I ended up doing that for now: https://salsa.debian.org/rlb/deb-guile/-/commit/9fae58b134d8951e15b39b8e1751160a245228a6 -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#43521; Package guile.
Full text available.Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Sep 2020 19:35:31 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 19 15:35:31 2020 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48155 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1kJidv-00075O-La for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:35:31 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:58372) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJidu-00075H-TV for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:35:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59822) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJidu-0007sa-Lh for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:35:30 -0400 Received: from defaultvalue.org ([45.33.119.55]:37504) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJids-00077H-8i for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:35:30 -0400 Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: rlb@HIDDEN) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FCC92008E for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:35:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9A8E614E072; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:35:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> To: bug-guile@HIDDEN Subject: Re: ports.test "non-revealed port is closed" breaks other tests In-Reply-To: <87ft7d601y.fsf@HIDDEN> References: <87ft7d601y.fsf@HIDDEN> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:35:26 -0500 Message-ID: <87d02h5zlt.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=45.33.119.55; envelope-from=rlb@HIDDEN; helo=defaultvalue.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/19 15:25:46 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> writes: > I believe the problem is that if the gc doesn't collect the port when > the test calls (gc), then the test (which recognizes that possibility) > calls close-fdes on the underlying fd. However, the port still exists, > and it may be garbage collected later, during a test that's using the > same fd, which may break that test. ...and I'd have to think about it more carefully, but if dropping the close-fdes call would completely prevent any subsequent test from re-using the fd unsafely before the lingering port is collected, then perhaps that's one potential fix. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#43521; Package guile.
Full text available.Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Sep 2020 19:26:11 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 19 15:26:11 2020 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48141 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1kJiUl-0006qT-Fy for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:26:11 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:54336) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJiUj-0006q2-91 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:26:02 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJiUi-0005Px-RT for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:26:01 -0400 Received: from defaultvalue.org ([45.33.119.55]:37502) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rlb@HIDDEN>) id 1kJiUb-0005yG-NS for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:26:00 -0400 Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: rlb@HIDDEN) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 334A720147 for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:25:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B23D014E072; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:25:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN> To: bug-guile@HIDDEN Subject: ports.test "non-revealed port is closed" breaks other tests Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:25:45 -0500 Message-ID: <87ft7d601y.fsf@HIDDEN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=45.33.119.55; envelope-from=rlb@HIDDEN; helo=defaultvalue.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/19 15:25:46 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) I think the "non-revealed port is closed" test can break other tests, depending on the gc's behavior. At the moment this is easy to reproduce for some reason (presumably differing gc behavior) on the Debian s390x machines. I believe the problem is that if the gc doesn't collect the port when the test calls (gc), then the test (which recognizes that possibility) calls close-fdes on the underlying fd. However, the port still exists, and it may be garbage collected later, during a test that's using the same fd, which may break that test. I did add some low-level fprintf diagnostics which confirmed that exact behavior. i.e. one of the subsequent tests would call (gc), and I could see that the old port object (identified by the %p pointer) from the earlier "non-revealed port is closed" test, closed the fd which broke the the current test when it attempted a seek on the fd that should still be open. For now, I've just commented out the test in the Debian packages, and unless some other arrangements can be made, suspect we might want to do the same thing in Guile itself. Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
Rob Browning <rlb@HIDDEN>:bug-guile@HIDDEN.
Full text available.bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#43521; Package guile.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.