Acknowledgement sent
to Martin-Éric Racine <[email protected]>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:45:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On a Geode LX (i686 without PAE), the most recent sudo dumps core. dmesg shows the following:
Just for the record, the current i386 sudo was built on x86-ubc-02, Logs
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sudo&ver=1.9.9-1&arch=i386
I guess this might be a toolchain or autobuilder issue.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:41 AM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On a Geode LX (i686 without PAE), the most recent sudo dumps core. dmesg shows the following:
>
> Just for the record, the current i386 sudo was built on x86-ubc-02, Logs
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sudo&ver=1.9.9-1&arch=i386
>
> I guess this might be a toolchain or autobuilder issue.
The log suggests that this was built on an amd64 host configured with
a 386 chroot. This might explain it. Putting the port maintainers in
CC.
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 03 Feb 2022 08:12:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:55:53AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:41 AM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > On a Geode LX (i686 without PAE), the most recent sudo dumps core. dmesg shows the following:
> >
> > Just for the record, the current i386 sudo was built on x86-ubc-02, Logs
> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sudo&ver=1.9.9-1&arch=i386
> >
> > I guess this might be a toolchain or autobuilder issue.
>
> The log suggests that this was built on an amd64 host configured with
> a 386 chroot. This might explain it. Putting the port maintainers in
> CC.
I also see
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC
Is Geode LX a supported machine in Bullseye in the first place? I
understand that the ALIX boards use that CPU and that they are rather
widely deployed, but...
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:55 AM Martin-Éric Racine
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:41 AM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > On a Geode LX (i686 without PAE), the most recent sudo dumps core. dmesg shows the following:
> >
> > Just for the record, the current i386 sudo was built on x86-ubc-02, Logs
> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sudo&ver=1.9.9-1&arch=i386
> >
> > I guess this might be a toolchain or autobuilder issue.
>
> The log suggests that this was built on an amd64 host configured with
> a 386 chroot. This might explain it. Putting the port maintainers in
> CC.
FYI I tried building this in a chroot. The following doesn't bode too well:
Now running lintian sudo_1.9.9-1_i386.changes ...
W: sudo-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program
interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/52/9f0be3cc3ee3895db3782367a6d5027b490c16.debug]
W: sudo-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program
interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/60/b26a463d4e15e03b1cad5bbd3a1c7727374e33.debug]
W: sudo-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program
interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/62/e514099b09b5784710801d4ee31c939fa78be2.debug]
W: sudo-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program
interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/75/92f631f7e3d7b3d445949b531311bd3c9dfd8d.debug]
W: sudo-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program
interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/bf/93824f1972a7ac3e65aa9cc4a2e688719c4218.debug]
W: sudo-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program
interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/d0/3d4a21049378634ee409aedd9e737342f022f7.debug]
W: sudo-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program
interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/dc/68f81b10cfdf0528275050a5c9f58212c747b7.debug]
W: sudo-ldap-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find
program interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/09/fd070313d4b734265d870c2a6c3c6ed5aa19af.debug]
W: sudo-ldap-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find
program interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/64/c8cb86718642d65fc1d409ba1d673c4a8a667d.debug]
W: sudo-ldap-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find
program interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/7e/ae661fff053994f13f649a30bde394ed533704.debug]
W: sudo-ldap-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find
program interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/87/15a519ebb851bbeae9dc69da45fce90621f43f.debug]
W: sudo-ldap-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find
program interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/dc/bc41efaa2f4467cabe9b472ae91056951a0bfe.debug]
W: sudo-ldap-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find
program interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/e8/be7f62e31944813b3c52f051f8507869aa6550.debug]
W: sudo-ldap-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find
program interpreter name
[usr/lib/debug/.build-id/e9/e23698273c50a1e632d319e1586a8de59dd38b.debug]
N: 38 hints overridden (28 errors, 6 warnings, 4 info); 0 unused overrides
Finished running lintian.
Martin-Éric
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:10 AM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:55:53AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:41 AM Marc Haber
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > On a Geode LX (i686 without PAE), the most recent sudo dumps core. dmesg shows the following:
> > >
> > > Just for the record, the current i386 sudo was built on x86-ubc-02, Logs
> > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sudo&ver=1.9.9-1&arch=i386
> > >
> > > I guess this might be a toolchain or autobuilder issue.
> >
> > The log suggests that this was built on an amd64 host configured with
> > a 386 chroot. This might explain it. Putting the port maintainers in
> > CC.
>
> I also see
> Kernel taint flags: TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC
>
> Is Geode LX a supported machine in Bullseye in the first place? I
> understand that the ALIX boards use that CPU and that they are rather
> widely deployed, but...
The base level kernel for i386 (linux-image-686) currently is a kernel
configured for Geode.
CONFIG_MGEODE_LX=y
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 03 Feb 2022 08:36:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 10:11:30AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> W: sudo-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program
> interpreter name
> [usr/lib/debug/.build-id/52/9f0be3cc3ee3895db3782367a6d5027b490c16.debug]
See #1000977 and #1000449
tl;dr, that's a binutils bug, which in turn causes those are non-overridable
lintian warnings.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:14 AM Martin-Éric Racine
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:10 AM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:55:53AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:41 AM Marc Haber
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > > On a Geode LX (i686 without PAE), the most recent sudo dumps core. dmesg shows the following:
> > > >
> > > > Just for the record, the current i386 sudo was built on x86-ubc-02, Logs
> > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sudo&ver=1.9.9-1&arch=i386
> > > >
> > > > I guess this might be a toolchain or autobuilder issue.
> > >
> > > The log suggests that this was built on an amd64 host configured with
> > > a 386 chroot. This might explain it. Putting the port maintainers in
> > > CC.
> >
> > I also see
> > Kernel taint flags: TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC
> >
> > Is Geode LX a supported machine in Bullseye in the first place? I
> > understand that the ALIX boards use that CPU and that they are rather
> > widely deployed, but...
>
> The base level kernel for i386 (linux-image-686) currently is a kernel
> configured for Geode.
>
> CONFIG_MGEODE_LX=y
Hello again,
Is there any progress on this? Have you checked wiht upstream for
possible changes in the code that would explain this? Or have there
been recent changes in the i386 port's toolchain defaults?
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:27:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56:54PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:14 AM Martin-Éric Racine
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:10 AM Marc Haber
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:55:53AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:41 AM Marc Haber
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > > > On a Geode LX (i686 without PAE), the most recent sudo dumps core. dmesg shows the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for the record, the current i386 sudo was built on x86-ubc-02, Logs
> > > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sudo&ver=1.9.9-1&arch=i386
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess this might be a toolchain or autobuilder issue.
> > > >
> > > > The log suggests that this was built on an amd64 host configured with
> > > > a 386 chroot. This might explain it. Putting the port maintainers in
> > > > CC.
> > >
> > > I also see
> > > Kernel taint flags: TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC
> > >
> > > Is Geode LX a supported machine in Bullseye in the first place? I
> > > understand that the ALIX boards use that CPU and that they are rather
> > > widely deployed, but...
> >
> > The base level kernel for i386 (linux-image-686) currently is a kernel
> > configured for Geode.
> >
> > CONFIG_MGEODE_LX=y
>
> Hello again,
>
> Is there any progress on this? Have you checked wiht upstream for
> possible changes in the code that would explain this?
Not yet. Can you confirm that old sudo upstream works with the current
toolchain? Sadly, I don't have any 32 bit systems left other than some
ARMs.
> Or have there
> been recent changes in the i386 port's toolchain defaults?
I was hoping that the i386 porters would comment on that.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:23 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56:54PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:14 AM Martin-Éric Racine
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 10:10 AM Marc Haber
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:55:53AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:41 AM Marc Haber
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:11:10AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > > > > On a Geode LX (i686 without PAE), the most recent sudo dumps core. dmesg shows the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just for the record, the current i386 sudo was built on x86-ubc-02, Logs
> > > > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=sudo&ver=1.9.9-1&arch=i386
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess this might be a toolchain or autobuilder issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > The log suggests that this was built on an amd64 host configured with
> > > > > a 386 chroot. This might explain it. Putting the port maintainers in
> > > > > CC.
> > > >
> > > > I also see
> > > > Kernel taint flags: TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC
> > > >
> > > > Is Geode LX a supported machine in Bullseye in the first place? I
> > > > understand that the ALIX boards use that CPU and that they are rather
> > > > widely deployed, but...
> > >
> > > The base level kernel for i386 (linux-image-686) currently is a kernel
> > > configured for Geode.
> > >
> > > CONFIG_MGEODE_LX=y
> >
> > Hello again,
> >
> > Is there any progress on this? Have you checked wiht upstream for
> > possible changes in the code that would explain this?
>
> Not yet. Can you confirm that old sudo upstream works with the current
> toolchain? Sadly, I don't have any 32 bit systems left other than some
> ARMs.
Logged onto my unstable-i386 chroot.
$ dget http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sudo/sudo_1.9.5p2-3.dsc
Fetched build-deps.
$ debuild -uc -us
Copied sudo and sudo-dbgsym over to the Geode host.
Logged onto the Geode host.
$ su
dpkg -i sudo*.deb
Logged onto Geode host as a normal user.
Tried a sudo command. No core dump. Command works as expected.
This would suggest upstream changes as the source of the problem.
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:51:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 01:36:17PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> Logged onto my unstable-i386 chroot.
> $ dget http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sudo/sudo_1.9.5p2-3.dsc
> Fetched build-deps.
> $ debuild -uc -us
> Copied sudo and sudo-dbgsym over to the Geode host.
> Logged onto the Geode host.
> $ su
> dpkg -i sudo*.deb
> Logged onto Geode host as a normal user.
> Tried a sudo command. No core dump. Command works as expected.
Thank you. Two more questions:
Can you do actual builds on the Geode box?
If so, does the 1.9.9 package also dump core when it was actually built
on Geode?
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:57:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:47:47PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 01:36:17PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > Logged onto my unstable-i386 chroot.
> > $ dget http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sudo/sudo_1.9.5p2-3.dsc
> > Fetched build-deps.
> > $ debuild -uc -us
> > Copied sudo and sudo-dbgsym over to the Geode host.
> > Logged onto the Geode host.
> > $ su
> > dpkg -i sudo*.deb
> > Logged onto Geode host as a normal user.
> > Tried a sudo command. No core dump. Command works as expected.
>
> Thank you. Two more questions:
>
> Can you do actual builds on the Geode box?
> If so, does the 1.9.9 package also dump core when it was actually built
> on Geode?
And, can you try 1.9.8p2-1 from Snapshot?
https://snapshot.debian.org/package/sudo/1.9.8p2-1/
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:47 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 01:36:17PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > Logged onto my unstable-i386 chroot.
> > $ dget http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sudo/sudo_1.9.5p2-3.dsc
> > Fetched build-deps.
> > $ debuild -uc -us
> > Copied sudo and sudo-dbgsym over to the Geode host.
> > Logged onto the Geode host.
> > $ su
> > dpkg -i sudo*.deb
> > Logged onto Geode host as a normal user.
> > Tried a sudo command. No core dump. Command works as expected.
>
> Thank you. Two more questions:
>
> Can you do actual builds on the Geode box?
> If so, does the 1.9.9 package also dump core when it was actually built
> on Geode?
Logged onto Geode host.
$ dget http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sudo/sudo_1.9.9-1.dsc
Fetched build-deps.
$ debuild -uc -us
[have plenty of coffee and snacks while things build]
Build crashes. See attachment.
Martin-Éric
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:52 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:47:47PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 01:36:17PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > Logged onto my unstable-i386 chroot.
> > > $ dget http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sudo/sudo_1.9.5p2-3.dsc
> > > Fetched build-deps.
> > > $ debuild -uc -us
> > > Copied sudo and sudo-dbgsym over to the Geode host.
> > > Logged onto the Geode host.
> > > $ su
> > > dpkg -i sudo*.deb
> > > Logged onto Geode host as a normal user.
> > > Tried a sudo command. No core dump. Command works as expected.
> >
> > Thank you. Two more questions:
> >
> > Can you do actual builds on the Geode box?
> > If so, does the 1.9.9 package also dump core when it was actually built
> > on Geode?
>
> And, can you try 1.9.8p2-1 from Snapshot?
> https://snapshot.debian.org/package/sudo/1.9.8p2-1/
This build also crashes. Log attached.
Martin-Éric
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:04 PM Martin-Éric Racine
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:52 PM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:47:47PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 01:36:17PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > Logged onto my unstable-i386 chroot.
> > > > $ dget http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sudo/sudo_1.9.5p2-3.dsc
> > > > Fetched build-deps.
> > > > $ debuild -uc -us
> > > > Copied sudo and sudo-dbgsym over to the Geode host.
> > > > Logged onto the Geode host.
> > > > $ su
> > > > dpkg -i sudo*.deb
> > > > Logged onto Geode host as a normal user.
> > > > Tried a sudo command. No core dump. Command works as expected.
> > >
> > > Thank you. Two more questions:
> > >
> > > Can you do actual builds on the Geode box?
> > > If so, does the 1.9.9 package also dump core when it was actually built
> > > on Geode?
> >
> > And, can you try 1.9.8p2-1 from Snapshot?
> > https://snapshot.debian.org/package/sudo/1.9.8p2-1/
>
> This build also crashes. Log attached.
I also tried building that 1.9.8p2-1 on my amd64 host's i386 chroot.
It builds, and the binaries don't produce a core dump on the Geode
host. Presumably the breakage happened after that release.
Hopefully this can help you narrow it down.
Martin-Éric
> Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 04:12:03PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> I also tried building that 1.9.8p2-1 on my amd64 host's i386 chroot.
> It builds, and the binaries don't produce a core dump on the Geode
> host. Presumably the breakage happened after that release.
>
> Hopefully this can help you narrow it down.
Can you build a small table like
sudo version built on works/works not
When I do they there is possibility that I get it wrong and we have
wrong history in the bug report.
Thanks for your help, I appreciate that.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:35 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 04:12:03PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > I also tried building that 1.9.8p2-1 on my amd64 host's i386 chroot.
> > It builds, and the binaries don't produce a core dump on the Geode
> > host. Presumably the breakage happened after that release.
> >
> > Hopefully this can help you narrow it down.
>
> Can you build a small table like
>
> sudo version built on works/works not
1.9.5p2-3 built in unstable i386 chroot (amd64 host) works on Geode host
1.9.8p2-1 built in unstable i386 chroot (amd64 host) works on Geode host
1.9.9-1 built in unstable i386 chroot (amd64 host) COREDUMPS on Geode host
1.9.8p2-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
1.9.9-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Tue, 15 Feb 2022 19:15:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:03:01PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> 1.9.8p2-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> 1.9.9-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
I apologize, I didnt see earlier that your builds were already failing
at build time. The error is
config.status:1474: error: cannot find input file: `plugins/sudoers/sudoers'
Was that file actually missing in your build chroot? If not, I don't
know what went wrong there.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:10 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:03:01PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > 1.9.8p2-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> > 1.9.9-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
>
> I apologize, I didnt see earlier that your builds were already failing
> at build time. The error is
>
> config.status:1474: error: cannot find input file: `plugins/sudoers/sudoers'
>
> Was that file actually missing in your build chroot? If not, I don't
> know what went wrong there.
No idea. I unpacked the source and types debuild. That's all.
However, here's an interesting thing. I tried building 1.9.9-1 again
on the Geode using a good sudo instead of fakeroot. It fails as
follows:
during GIMPLE pass: cunroll
../../../lib/util/event.c: In function ‘sudo_ev_add_v2’:
../../../lib/util/event.c:465:1: internal compiler error: in
graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
465 | sudo_ev_add_v2(struct sudo_event_base *base, struct sudo_event *ev,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0xb7555904 __libc_start_main
../csu/libc-start.c:332
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-11/README.Bugs> for instructions.
The bug is not reproducible, so it is likely a hardware or OS problem.
make[3]: *** [Makefile:653: event.lo] Virhe 1
make[3]: Poistutaan hakemistosta
”/home/perkelix/sudo-1.9.9/build-simple/lib/util”
make[2]: *** [Makefile:108: all] Virhe 2
make[2]: Poistutaan hakemistosta ”/home/perkelix/sudo-1.9.9/build-simple”
dh_auto_build: error: cd build-simple && make -j1 returned exit code 2
make[1]: *** [debian/rules:45: override_dh_auto_build] Virhe 2
make[1]: Poistutaan hakemistosta ”/home/perkelix/sudo-1.9.9”
make: *** [debian/rules:37: build] Virhe 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build subprocess returned exit status 2
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Wed, 16 Feb 2022 07:15:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:58:49PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:10 PM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:03:01PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > 1.9.8p2-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> > > 1.9.9-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> >
> > I apologize, I didnt see earlier that your builds were already failing
> > at build time. The error is
> >
> > config.status:1474: error: cannot find input file: `plugins/sudoers/sudoers'
> >
> > Was that file actually missing in your build chroot? If not, I don't
> > know what went wrong there.
>
> No idea. I unpacked the source and types debuild. That's all.
>
> However, here's an interesting thing. I tried building 1.9.9-1 again
> on the Geode using a good sudo instead of fakeroot. It fails as
> follows:
>
> during GIMPLE pass: cunroll
> ../../../lib/util/event.c: In function ‘sudo_ev_add_v2’:
> ../../../lib/util/event.c:465:1: internal compiler error: in
> graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
> 465 | sudo_ev_add_v2(struct sudo_event_base *base, struct sudo_event *ev,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 0xb7555904 __libc_start_main
> ../csu/libc-start.c:332
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with preprocessed source if appropriate.
I think that this refers to gcc, not to sudo.
> make[3]: *** [Makefile:653: event.lo] Virhe 1
> make[3]: Poistutaan hakemistosta
It would probably help to run those with an English locale.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:11 AM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:58:49PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:10 PM Marc Haber
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:03:01PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > 1.9.8p2-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> > > > 1.9.9-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> > >
> > > I apologize, I didnt see earlier that your builds were already failing
> > > at build time. The error is
> > >
> > > config.status:1474: error: cannot find input file: `plugins/sudoers/sudoers'
> > >
> > > Was that file actually missing in your build chroot? If not, I don't
> > > know what went wrong there.
> >
> > No idea. I unpacked the source and types debuild. That's all.
> >
> > However, here's an interesting thing. I tried building 1.9.9-1 again
> > on the Geode using a good sudo instead of fakeroot. It fails as
> > follows:
> >
> > during GIMPLE pass: cunroll
> > ../../../lib/util/event.c: In function ‘sudo_ev_add_v2’:
> > ../../../lib/util/event.c:465:1: internal compiler error: in
> > graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
> > 465 | sudo_ev_add_v2(struct sudo_event_base *base, struct sudo_event *ev,
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 0xb7555904 __libc_start_main
> > ../csu/libc-start.c:332
> > Please submit a full bug report,
> > with preprocessed source if appropriate.
>
> I think that this refers to gcc, not to sudo.
Yes, it's a GCC failure while building sudo 1.9.9-1 on the Geode host itself.
> > make[3]: *** [Makefile:653: event.lo] Virhe 1
> > make[3]: Poistutaan hakemistosta
>
> It would probably help to run those with an English locale.
/bin/bash ../../libtool --tag=disable-static --mode=compile gcc -c -o
json.lo -I../../../include -I../.. -I. -I../../../lib/util
-D_PATH_SUDO_CONF=\"/etc/sudo.conf\" -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-DZLIB_CONST -DDEFAULT_TEXT_DOMAIN=\"sudo\" -g -O2
-ffile-prefix-map=/home/perkelix/sudo-1.9.9=. -fstack-protector-strong
-Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wall -pedantic -fvisibility=hidden
-fPIE -fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection
-fcf-protection ../../../lib/util/json.c
libtool: compile: gcc -c -I../../../include -I../.. -I.
-I../../../lib/util -D_PATH_SUDO_CONF=\"/etc/sudo.conf\" -Wdate-time
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -DZLIB_CONST -DDEFAULT_TEXT_DOMAIN=\"sudo\" -g -O2
-ffile-prefix-map=/home/perkelix/sudo-1.9.9=. -fstack-protector-strong
-Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wall -pedantic -fvisibility=hidden
-fstack-protector-strong -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection
../../../lib/util/json.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/json.o
during GIMPLE pass: dom
../../../lib/util/json.c: In function 'json_append_string':
../../../lib/util/json.c:122:1: internal compiler error: in
graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
122 | json_append_string(struct json_container *json, const char *str)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0xb7574904 __libc_start_main
../csu/libc-start.c:332
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-11/README.Bugs> for instructions.
The bug is not reproducible, so it is likely a hardware or OS problem.
make[3]: *** [Makefile:968: json.lo] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/perkelix/sudo-1.9.9/build-simple/lib/util'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:108: all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/perkelix/sudo-1.9.9/build-simple'
dh_auto_build: error: cd build-simple && make -j1 returned exit code 2
make[1]: *** [debian/rules:45: override_dh_auto_build] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/perkelix/sudo-1.9.9'
make: *** [debian/rules:37: build] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build subprocess returned exit status 2
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Wed, 16 Feb 2022 08:15:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:08:01AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> ../../../lib/util/json.c:122:1: internal compiler error: in
> graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
That makes it a toolchain issue.
This bug has grown huge. Can you please file a new bug against gcc and
mark this bug as affected? I am not sure whether it woud make sense to
clone this monster to gcc.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:11 AM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:08:01AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > ../../../lib/util/json.c:122:1: internal compiler error: in
> > graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
>
> That makes it a toolchain issue.
>
> This bug has grown huge. Can you please file a new bug against gcc and
> mark this bug as affected? I am not sure whether it woud make sense to
> clone this monster to gcc.
Bug#1005863: gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:48:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:58:49PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:10 PM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:03:01PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > 1.9.8p2-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> > > 1.9.9-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> >
> > I apologize, I didnt see earlier that your builds were already failing
> > at build time. The error is
> >
> > config.status:1474: error: cannot find input file: `plugins/sudoers/sudoers'
> >
> > Was that file actually missing in your build chroot? If not, I don't
> > know what went wrong there.
>
> No idea. I unpacked the source and types debuild. That's all.
Can you retry building with the lines 4863-4866:
AX_CHECK_LINK_FLAG([-fcf-protection], [
AX_APPEND_FLAG([-fcf-protection], [SSP_CFLAGS])
AX_APPEND_FLAG([-Wc,-fcf-protection], [SSP_LDFLAGS])
])
of configure.ac removed? There is suspicion that the hardening options don't
play too well with Geode LX.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:45 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:58:49PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:10 PM Marc Haber
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:03:01PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > 1.9.8p2-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> > > > 1.9.9-1 FTBFS on Geode testing host (log attached earlier)
> > >
> > > I apologize, I didnt see earlier that your builds were already failing
> > > at build time. The error is
> > >
> > > config.status:1474: error: cannot find input file: `plugins/sudoers/sudoers'
> > >
> > > Was that file actually missing in your build chroot? If not, I don't
> > > know what went wrong there.
> >
> > No idea. I unpacked the source and types debuild. That's all.
Btw, the build log has tons of the following:
./configure: cannot duplicate fd -19201 to fd 0: Bad file descriptor
> Can you retry building with the lines 4863-4866:
>
> AX_CHECK_LINK_FLAG([-fcf-protection], [
> AX_APPEND_FLAG([-fcf-protection], [SSP_CFLAGS])
> AX_APPEND_FLAG([-Wc,-fcf-protection], [SSP_LDFLAGS])
> ])
>
> of configure.ac removed? There is suspicion that the hardening options don't
> play too well with Geode LX.
I cannot help but wonder why the build doesn't simply parse
$(HARDENING_CFLAGS) and $(HARDENING_LDFLAGS). Hard-coded hardening
options tend to be a bad idea. GCC supports them all, but the target
host's CPU won't always support them.
during GIMPLE pass: cunroll
../../../lib/util/event.c: In function ‘sudo_ev_add_v2’:
../../../lib/util/event.c:465:1: internal compiler error: in
graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
465 | sudo_ev_add_v2(struct sudo_event_base *base, struct sudo_event *ev,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0xb754d904 __libc_start_main
../csu/libc-start.c:332
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-11/README.Bugs> for instructions.
The bug is not reproducible, so it is likely a hardware or OS problem.
***
diff -Nru sudo-1.9.9/debian/changelog sudo-1.9.9/debian/changelog
--- sudo-1.9.9/debian/changelog 2022-01-31 21:19:55.000000000 +0200
+++ sudo-1.9.9/debian/changelog 2022-02-16 18:56:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+sudo (1.9.9-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+
+ -- Martin-Éric Racine <[email protected]> Wed, 16 Feb 2022
18:56:31 +0200
+
sudo (1.9.9-1) unstable; urgency=medium
* new upstream version
diff -Nru sudo-1.9.9/debian/patches/remove-fcf-protection.patch
sudo-1.9.9/debian/patches/remove-fcf-protection.patch
--- sudo-1.9.9/debian/patches/remove-fcf-protection.patch
1970-01-01 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
+++ sudo-1.9.9/debian/patches/remove-fcf-protection.patch
2022-02-16 18:56:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Description: <short summary of the patch>
+ TODO: Put a short summary on the line above and replace this paragraph
+ with a longer explanation of this change. Complete the meta-information
+ with other relevant fields (see below for details). To make it easier, the
+ information below has been extracted from the changelog. Adjust it or drop
+ it.
+ .
+ sudo (1.9.9-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+ .
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+Author: Martin-Éric Racine <[email protected]>
+
+---
+The information above should follow the Patch Tagging Guidelines, please
+checkout http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ to learn about the format. Here
+are templates for supplementary fields that you might want to add:
+
+Origin: <vendor|upstream|other>, <url of original patch>
+Bug: <url in upstream bugtracker>
+Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/<bugnumber>
+Bug-Ubuntu: https://launchpad.net/bugs/<bugnumber>
+Forwarded: <no|not-needed|url proving that it has been forwarded>
+Reviewed-By: <name and email of someone who approved the patch>
+Last-Update: 2022-02-16
+
+--- sudo-1.9.9.orig/configure.ac
++++ sudo-1.9.9/configure.ac
+@@ -4860,10 +4860,10 @@ if test "$enable_hardening" != "no"; the
+ AX_APPEND_FLAG([-fstack-clash-protection], [SSP_CFLAGS])
+ AX_APPEND_FLAG([-Wc,-fstack-clash-protection], [SSP_LDFLAGS])
+ ])
+- AX_CHECK_LINK_FLAG([-fcf-protection], [
+- AX_APPEND_FLAG([-fcf-protection], [SSP_CFLAGS])
+- AX_APPEND_FLAG([-Wc,-fcf-protection], [SSP_LDFLAGS])
+- ])
++dnl AX_CHECK_LINK_FLAG([-fcf-protection], [
++dnl AX_APPEND_FLAG([-fcf-protection], [SSP_CFLAGS])
++dnl AX_APPEND_FLAG([-Wc,-fcf-protection], [SSP_LDFLAGS])
++dnl ])
+ AX_CHECK_LINK_FLAG([-Wl,-z,relro],
[AX_APPEND_FLAG([-Wl,-z,relro], [LDFLAGS])])
+ AX_CHECK_LINK_FLAG([-Wl,-z,now], [AX_APPEND_FLAG([-Wl,-z,now],
[LDFLAGS])])
+ AX_CHECK_LINK_FLAG([-Wl,-z,noexecstack],
[AX_APPEND_FLAG([-Wl,-z,noexecstack], [LDFLAGS])])
diff -Nru sudo-1.9.9/debian/patches/series sudo-1.9.9/debian/patches/series
--- sudo-1.9.9/debian/patches/series 2022-01-31 21:19:55.000000000 +0200
+++ sudo-1.9.9/debian/patches/series 2022-02-16 18:56:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
paths-in-samples.diff
Whitelist-DPKG_COLORS-environment-variable.diff
sudo-ldap-docs
+remove-fcf-protection.patch
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:33:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 07:15:37PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> I cannot help but wonder why the build doesn't simply parse
> $(HARDENING_CFLAGS) and $(HARDENING_LDFLAGS). Hard-coded hardening
> options tend to be a bad idea. GCC supports them all, but the target
> host's CPU won't always support them.
That would be an upstream issue, I think. Upstream uses bugzilla, so you
need an account to submit a bug. Would you want to do that, or can you
help me with the wording of a bug report?
> during GIMPLE pass: cunroll
> ../../../lib/util/event.c: In function ‘sudo_ev_add_v2’:
> ../../../lib/util/event.c:465:1: internal compiler error: in
> graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
> 465 | sudo_ev_add_v2(struct sudo_event_base *base, struct sudo_event *ev,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 0xb754d904 __libc_start_main
> ../csu/libc-start.c:332
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with preprocessed source if appropriate.
> Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
> See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-11/README.Bugs> for instructions.
> The bug is not reproducible, so it is likely a hardware or OS problem.
So it still doesn't build on Geode LX.
How about your i386 build chroot?
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:31 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 07:15:37PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > I cannot help but wonder why the build doesn't simply parse
> > $(HARDENING_CFLAGS) and $(HARDENING_LDFLAGS). Hard-coded hardening
> > options tend to be a bad idea. GCC supports them all, but the target
> > host's CPU won't always support them.
>
> That would be an upstream issue, I think. Upstream uses bugzilla, so you
> need an account to submit a bug. Would you want to do that, or can you
> help me with the wording of a bug report?
>
> > during GIMPLE pass: cunroll
> > ../../../lib/util/event.c: In function ‘sudo_ev_add_v2’:
> > ../../../lib/util/event.c:465:1: internal compiler error: in
> > graphds_scc, at graphds.c:316
> > 465 | sudo_ev_add_v2(struct sudo_event_base *base, struct sudo_event *ev,
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 0xb754d904 __libc_start_main
> > ../csu/libc-start.c:332
> > Please submit a full bug report,
> > with preprocessed source if appropriate.
> > Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
> > See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-11/README.Bugs> for instructions.
> > The bug is not reproducible, so it is likely a hardware or OS problem.
>
> So it still doesn't build on Geode LX.
>
> How about your i386 build chroot?
Builds fine on my i386 chroot (amd64 host) and the resulting binary
doesn't dump core when installed on the Geode. Assuming there's no
uncovered corner case due to other optimizations, I think we've got a
winner.
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Henning Paul <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:24:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:45:28 Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:31 PM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 07:15:37PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> So it still doesn't build on Geode LX.
>>
>> How about your i386 build chroot?
>
> Builds fine on my i386 chroot (amd64 host) and the resulting binary
> doesn't dump core when installed on the Geode. Assuming there's no
> uncovered corner case due to other optimizations, I think we've got a
> winner.
Triggered build on a fresh sid install on my Alix board and obtained the
attached log file. AFAICT, the compile itself did not produce any
errors, but fuzz_sudo_conf causes the known illegal opcode exception.
best regards
Henning
Acknowledgement sent
to Henning Paul <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 18 Feb 2022 20:54:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Am 18.02.22 um 15:21 schrieb Henning Paul:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:45:28 Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:31 PM Marc Haber
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 07:15:37PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>>> So it still doesn't build on Geode LX.
>>>
>>> How about your i386 build chroot?
>>
>> Builds fine on my i386 chroot (amd64 host) and the resulting binary
>> doesn't dump core when installed on the Geode. Assuming there's no
>> uncovered corner case due to other optimizations, I think we've got a
>> winner.
>
> Triggered build on a fresh sid install on my Alix board and obtained the
> attached log file. AFAICT, the compile itself did not produce any
> errors, but fuzz_sudo_conf causes the known illegal opcode exception.
>
> best regards
> Henning
lscpu:
root@alix:~# lscpu
Architecture: i586
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit
Address sizes: 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 1
On-line CPU(s) list: 0
Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD
Model name: Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by AMD PCS
CPU family: 5
Model: 10
Thread(s) per core: 1
Core(s) per socket: 1
Socket(s): 1
Stepping: 2
BogoMIPS: 996.02
Flags: fpu de pse tsc msr cx8 sep pge cmov clflush mmx
mmxext 3
dnowext 3dnow cpuid 3dnowprefetch vmmcall
Caches (sum of all):
L1d: 57 KiB (1 instance)
L1i: 57 KiB (1 instance)
L2: 128 KiB (1 instance)
Vulnerabilities:
Itlb multihit: Not affected
L1tf: Not affected
Mds: Not affected
Meltdown: Not affected
Spec store bypass: Vulnerable
Spectre v1: Mitigation; usercopy/swapgs barriers and __user
pointer
sanitization
Spectre v2: Mitigation; Full generic retpoline, STIBP
disabled, RSB
filling
Srbds: Not affected
Tsx async abort: Not affected
best regards
Henning
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 19 Feb 2022 05:33:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 09:51:57PM +0100, Henning Paul wrote:
> root@alix:~# lscpu
> Architecture: i586
> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit
> Address sizes: 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 1
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0
> Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD
> Model name: Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by AMD PCS
Should that not explicitly say "Geode LX"? And, afaik, the Geode LX is a
i686 not an i586 machine?
Martin-Éric, what does your lscpu say?
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
Acknowledgement sent
to Henning Paul <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 19 Feb 2022 08:06:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hello,
Am 19.02.22 um 06:30 schrieb Marc Haber:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 09:51:57PM +0100, Henning Paul wrote:
>> root@alix:~# lscpu
>> Architecture: i586
>> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit
>> Address sizes: 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual
>> Byte Order: Little Endian
>> CPU(s): 1
>> On-line CPU(s) list: 0
>> Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD
>> Model name: Geode(TM) Integrated Processor by AMD PCS
>
> Should that not explicitly say "Geode LX"?
I can send you photos of the processor as proof, it says LX on it.
> And, afaik, the Geode LX is a i686 not an i586 machine?
IIRC, it doesn't implement all of the i686 instruction set (hence the
illegal opcode).
regards
Henning
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Control: tags -1 wontfix
Control: severity -1 minor
thanks
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 09:02:02AM +0100, Henning Paul wrote:
> IIRC, it doesn't implement all of the i686 instruction set (hence the
> illegal opcode).
I apologize, but it looks like the Geode LX is no longer among the CPUs
supported in Debian. FWIW, the stretch release notes still mentioned the
Geode LX explicitly in chapters 2.1 and 5.1.7:
2.1:
Support for 32-bit PCs no longer covers vanilla i586
The 32-bit PC support (known as the Debian architecture i386) now no
longer covers a plain i586 processor. The new baseline is the i686,
although some i586 processors (e.g. the “AMD Geode”) will remain
supported.
Please refer to Section 5.1.7, “Minimum requirement for 32-bit Intel
is now i686 (with a minor exception)” for more information.
5.1.7. Minimum requirement for 32-bit Intel is now i686 (with a minor exception)
The 32-bit PC support (known as the Debian architecture i386) now no
longer covers a plain i586 processor. The new baseline is the i686,
although some i586 processors (e.g. the “AMD Geode”) will remain
supported.
Both mentions have vanished from the Release Notes for buster and
bullseye. It looks like this non-support has now manifested itself in
our toolchains using the full i686 instruction set including the opcodes
that the Geode LX does not have.
I therefore apologize for marking this bug wontfix.
If you find any evidence in our docs that the Geode LX should still be
supported in Debian 12, please let me know and I'll happily resume
pursuing this issue.
Greetings
Marc
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:21 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Control: tags -1 wontfix
> Control: severity -1 minor
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 09:02:02AM +0100, Henning Paul wrote:
> > IIRC, it doesn't implement all of the i686 instruction set (hence the
> > illegal opcode).
>
> I apologize, but it looks like the Geode LX is no longer among the CPUs
> supported in Debian. FWIW, the stretch release notes still mentioned the
> Geode LX explicitly in chapters 2.1 and 5.1.7:
>
> 2.1:
> Support for 32-bit PCs no longer covers vanilla i586
The Geode LX is not a vanilla 586. It is a vanilla 686. The reported
CPU variant has simply remained at 586 for reasons only known to AMD.
Martin-Éric
Information stored
: Bug#1004894; Package sudo.
(Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:27:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent
to [email protected]:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded.
(Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:27:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:33:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> The Geode LX is not a vanilla 586. It is a vanilla 686. The reported
> CPU variant has simply remained at 586 for reasons only known to AMD.
According to all docs available to me, it is a vanilla 686 sans
multi-byte NOP ("NOPL").
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
Information stored
: Bug#1004894; Package sudo.
(Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:33:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded.
(Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:33:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:30 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > The Geode LX is not a vanilla 586. It is a vanilla 686. The reported
> > CPU variant has simply remained at 586 for reasons only known to AMD.
>
> According to all docs available to me, it is a vanilla 686 sans
> multi-byte NOP ("NOPL").
That's correct. No PAE and no NOPL.
Martin-Éric
Acknowledgement sent
to Marc Haber <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Sudo Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:42:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:32:58PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:30 PM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > The Geode LX is not a vanilla 586. It is a vanilla 686. The reported
> > > CPU variant has simply remained at 586 for reasons only known to AMD.
> >
> > According to all docs available to me, it is a vanilla 686 sans
> > multi-byte NOP ("NOPL").
>
> That's correct. No PAE and no NOPL.
The only piece of evidence I have is that:
- Debian explicitly mentioned NOPL-less i686 processors as being
supported in stretch AND
- this mention vanishing in buster and bullseye
Not being a native speaker of English, is there any other possible
interpretation of this removal than the retraction of support for
NOPL-less i686 processors?
I have never seen Debian issue release notes like "the frobnication
processor is no longer supported", and i386 being the former mainstream
architecture, there is no explicit porter group to talk to.
I am afraid that my time resources are limited. If you want continued
action on this but report, please talk to the gcc and/or linux
maintainers in Debian and have them tell me that the Geode LX is still
supported.
I apologize, but I do not intend at the moment to reduce sudo's
hardening level just to have it run on Geode LX.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:39 PM Marc Haber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:32:58PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:30 PM Marc Haber
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > The Geode LX is not a vanilla 586. It is a vanilla 686. The reported
> > > > CPU variant has simply remained at 586 for reasons only known to AMD.
> > >
> > > According to all docs available to me, it is a vanilla 686 sans
> > > multi-byte NOP ("NOPL").
> >
> > That's correct. No PAE and no NOPL.
>
> The only piece of evidence I have is that:
>
> - Debian explicitly mentioned NOPL-less i686 processors as being
> supported in stretch AND
> - this mention vanishing in buster and bullseye
>
> Not being a native speaker of English, is there any other possible
> interpretation of this removal than the retraction of support for
> NOPL-less i686 processors?
Possibly. Dropping support for non-PAE i686 has been randomly
discussed on mailing lists. However, the base kernel on i386 still is
configured for a Geode LX.
> I have never seen Debian issue release notes like "the frobnication
> processor is no longer supported", and i386 being the former mainstream
> architecture, there is no explicit porter group to talk to.
That's incorrect. Every now and then, architectures drop support for
earlier CPU variants and that tends to be mentioned in the release
notes.
> I am afraid that my time resources are limited. If you want continued
> action on this but report, please talk to the gcc and/or linux
> maintainers in Debian and have them tell me that the Geode LX is still
> supported.
In CC.
Martin-Éric
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:45 PM Martin-Éric Racine
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:39 PM Marc Haber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:32:58PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:30 PM Marc Haber
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > > The Geode LX is not a vanilla 586. It is a vanilla 686. The reported
> > > > > CPU variant has simply remained at 586 for reasons only known to AMD.
> > > >
> > > > According to all docs available to me, it is a vanilla 686 sans
> > > > multi-byte NOP ("NOPL").
> > >
> > > That's correct. No PAE and no NOPL.
> >
> > The only piece of evidence I have is that:
> >
> > - Debian explicitly mentioned NOPL-less i686 processors as being
> > supported in stretch AND
> > - this mention vanishing in buster and bullseye
> >
> > Not being a native speaker of English, is there any other possible
> > interpretation of this removal than the retraction of support for
> > NOPL-less i686 processors?
>
> Possibly. Dropping support for non-PAE i686 has been randomly
> discussed on mailing lists. However, the base kernel on i386 still is
> configured for a Geode LX.
>
> > I have never seen Debian issue release notes like "the frobnication
> > processor is no longer supported", and i386 being the former mainstream
> > architecture, there is no explicit porter group to talk to.
>
> That's incorrect. Every now and then, architectures drop support for
> earlier CPU variants and that tends to be mentioned in the release
> notes.
>
> > I am afraid that my time resources are limited. If you want continued
> > action on this but report, please talk to the gcc and/or linux
> > maintainers in Debian and have them tell me that the Geode LX is still
> > supported.
>
> In CC.
FYI, I reported this upstream at:
https://github.com/sudo-project/sudo/issues/140
Upstream commented that this seems to really be a GCC issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104713
The GCC bug report refers to this Debian bug as an example of what
this GCC bug causes.
Martin-Éric
Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained
from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.