https://blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2020/07/04/gentoo-tinderbox/ Issue: app-emulation/qemu-5.2.0 fails to compile. Discovered on: amd64 (internal ref: ci)
Created attachment 677557 [details] build.log.xz build log and emerge --info (compressed because it exceeds attachment limit, use 'xzless' to read it)
Possible context of error(s): coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' coroutine-ucontext.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
I believe this is already fixed by: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=541bb02a46aa817953c29c8ffef222bbfb58ebd8
the build log indicates that it was merged at the commit you pointed out, so no, that commit introduces the issue for me.
(In reply to Agostino Sarubbo from comment #4) > the build log indicates that it was merged at the commit you pointed out, so > no, that commit introduces the issue for me. Yes, I was just about to correct myself. Sorry for the noise.
*** Bug 759334 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Seems the compiled code fails _if_ safestack feature is found, then adequately disable safe_stack if succeeded. int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { #if defined(__has_feature) #if __has_feature(safe_stack) #error SafeStack Enabled #endif #endif return 0; } Don't know what prompted adding this patch but it doesn't looked needed. qemu-5.1.0 also tested for this the same way.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=6fd8b254b1822d231fdc94b02dbf2635bc7b4bfc commit 6fd8b254b1822d231fdc94b02dbf2635bc7b4bfc Author: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-12-10 14:56:15 +0000 Commit: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-12-10 14:59:16 +0000 profiles/package.mask: mask qemu-5.2.0 for testing Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/759331 Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> profiles/package.mask | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3ef9e5361d90e4a3b60da326db292bdd13322529 commit 3ef9e5361d90e4a3b60da326db292bdd13322529 Author: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-12-10 15:01:02 +0000 Commit: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-12-10 15:03:03 +0000 app-emulation/qemu: revert "fix safe-stack feature detection" I misinterpreted what test does. Will need to check why it passes for me. Reverting it for now. This reverts commit 541bb02a46aa817953c29c8ffef222bbfb58ebd8. Reported-by: Agostino Sarubbo Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/759331 Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> app-emulation/qemu/files/qemu-5.2.0-safe-stack.patch | 12 ------------ app-emulation/qemu/qemu-5.2.0.ebuild | 1 - 2 files changed, 13 deletions(-)
*** Bug 759364 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Ionen Wolkens from comment #7) > Seems the compiled code fails _if_ safestack feature is found, then > adequately disable safe_stack if succeeded. > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > { > #if defined(__has_feature) > #if __has_feature(safe_stack) > #error SafeStack Enabled > #endif > #endif > return 0; > } > > Don't know what prompted adding this patch but it doesn't looked needed. > qemu-5.1.0 also tested for this the same way. I misinterpreted the test. This code also fails to compile with -Werror and a warning-enabling flag in CFLAGS, say -Wall -Wextra (I happen to have those set). And that triggers safe stack mis-detection.
