• Re: Really enable -fstack-clash-protection on armhf/armel?

    From Mate Kukri@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 3 14:30:01 2023
    Hello,

    Another Canonicaler chiming in, I was also involved with debugging this problem in Ubuntu.

    I believe the most obvious issues we were having was the gsasl tests indirectly triggered
    by gnutls28, and the unrar-free tests triggered by libarchive. Both of which do include
    valgrind use.

    In addition to flag being obviously incompatible with valgrind, it also caused issues
    with gdb for me, and some segmentation faults in gsasl outside any debugging tools
    (although I did not investigate these in much detail).

    There are claims from upstream about the implementation on 32-bit arm being questionable,
    and no other distros seem to ship it. I believe enabling this before more upstream work
    to fix these issues would be unwise. Breaking valgrind and gdb is already problematic
    enough by itself, let alone any previously unknown issues discovered entering uncharted
    waters.

    Mate Kukri

    FTR there is no issue in Debian with any of the above in my tests.
    Also the packages don't seem to use valgrind at any point: not when
    building, not in the autopkgtests.

    Full build logs including autopkgtest output here: https://people.debian.org/~ema/armhf-stack-clash-protection/

    What exactly did not work in Ubuntu and how? Perhaps there are
    additional jobs running valgrind in CI that may explain the failures?

    Thanks,
    Emanuele

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mate Kukri@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 3 19:10:02 2023
    I believe the most obvious issues we were having was the gsasl tests indirectly triggered
    by gnutls28 the unrar-free tests triggered by libarchive. Both of which do include
    valgrind use.

    In addition to flag being obviously incompatible with valgrind, it also caused issues
    with gdb for me, and some segmentation faults in gsasl outside any debugging tools
    (although I did not investigate these in much detail).

    There are also claims from upstream about the implementation on 32-bit arm being questionable,
    and no other distros s

    Mate Kukri

    FTR there is no issue in Debian with any of the above in my tests.
    Also the packages don't seem to use valgrind at any point: not when
    building, not in the autopkgtests.

    Full build logs including autopkgtest output here: https://people.debian.org/~ema/armhf-stack-clash-protection/

    What exactly did not work in Ubuntu and how? Perhaps there are
    additional jobs running valgrind in CI that may explain the failures?

    Thanks,
    Emanuele

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)