[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?
From: |
David Abdurachmanov |
Subject: |
Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases? |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:49:22 +0200 |
> On 14 Feb 2016, at 10:03, David Abdurachmanov <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libunwind.git/tree/libunwind.spec
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libunwind.git/tree/
I decided to quickly scan the patches and check libunwind master.
If I didn't make a mistake:
## libunwind-1.1-fix-CVE-2015-3239.patch
Upstream, 396b6c7ab737e2bff244d640601c436a26260ca1
## libunwind-aarch64.patch
Full AArch64 support, this is upstreamed AFAIK.
## libunwind-arm-default-to-exidx.patch
RPM Changelog states:
* Tue Jun 2 2015 Tom Callaway <address@hidden> - 1.1-8
- default arm unwinding method to exidx, old default of dwarf never works on
Fedora
(#1226806)
Here is the BZ item: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226806#c4
I guess, same issue should affect other distributions, because usually debug
information is separated from the binaries shipped in a separate package.
I checked debian (libunwind_1.1-3.2.debian.tar.xz) they don't do this.
Does not look like it's a bug in libunwind, and depend on TCMalloc.
But maybe it's reasonable to change the default? That's up to experts.
## libunwind-disable-setjmp.patch
The patch states:
At least x86_64 version cannot work, src/setjmp/setjmp.c and
src/setjmp/sigsetjmp.c are not even compiled, src/x86_64/longjmp.S does not
match src/setjmp/setjmp.c + include/tdep-x86_64/jmpbuf.h .
--enable-setjmp was introduced by 563b0ff3144c0e60a9aa63fdafb4dea66ecd3d50
Thus one should be able to disable setjmp without extra patches.
## libunwind-fix-ppc64_test_altivec.patch
Upstream, 4c62c4a9556f92495d93eddc7641497e1ce1e35c
- - -
Debian patches:
## 01-rpath.patch
Looks like distro specific.
They are disabling rpath on *-pc-linux-gnu hosts.
http://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue
## 20123007_workaround_test-ptrace.patch
Looks to be not upstreamed, prevents some crash (segfault).
Patch is small, here it is:
Index: libunwind/tests/test-ptrace.c
===================================================================
--- libunwind.orig/tests/test-ptrace.c 2012-07-30 10:05:35.271168000 +0100
+++ libunwind/tests/test-ptrace.c 2012-07-30 11:39:37.309158623 +0100
@@ -182,6 +182,11 @@
/* automated test case */
argv = args;
+
+ /* Unless the args array is 'walked' the child
+ process is unable to access it and dies with a segfault */
+ fprintf(stderr, "Automated test (%s,%s,%s,%s)\n",
+ args[0],args[1],args[2],args[3]);
}
else if (argc > 1)
while (argv[optind][0] == '-')
## 20130803-known_test_failure_to_XFAIL_TESTS.patch
Upstreamed, ae3dd9417a3d178cf51ce744d85b695dbf025b44
## 20130803-crasher_test_only_for_coredump.patch
Upstream, seems to be 61fad17d29ed661d15a80ed931c7822e5e7ea411
## 20140507-ppc_lib64.patch
Looks like this reverts a hunk from c340d04279f046b543066dbc8f36452602d7fd52
It avoids setting libdir='${exec_prefix}/lib64' on PPC64 target. This looks
distro specific.
## ppc64el.diff
This one looks like powerpc64le-linux support, which was added by
da0b1a146f5e6d3273a2719e9b11f3f91d077eb1
## AArch64-port.diff
Adding AArch64 support, upstreamed.
## fix-lzma-linking.patch
The patch look different, but it's upstreamed as
dee708f4bc9aa169bd96e97c5e5ac851a10c7868
Cheers,
david
- [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, Yichao Yu, 2016/02/06
- Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, Arun Sharma, 2016/02/13
- Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, David Abdurachmanov, 2016/02/14
- Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, David Abdurachmanov, 2016/02/21
- Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, Arun Sharma, 2016/02/22
- Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, David Abdurachmanov, 2016/02/23
- Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, David Abdurachmanov, 2016/02/23
- Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, Arun Sharma, 2016/02/28
- Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, Harald Servat, 2016/02/29
Re: [Libunwind-devel] Plan for future releases?, Konstantin Belousov, 2016/02/17