Re: Fwd: [Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux

From: Paul H. Hargrove (PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov)
Date: Mon Dec 22 2008 - 12:41:34 PST

  • Next message: Paul H. Hargrove: "Re: Fwd: [Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux"
    Neal Becker wrote:
    > On Monday 22 December 2008, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
    >> With all due respect to the person who raised the question: a link failure
    >> is NOT any indication that such buffer overflows are present.  It is an
    >> indication of a toolchain that creates implicit dependencies and broke
    >> linking of many shared libraries and dynamically loadable modules other
    >> than BLCR.
    >>
    >> Neal, have you or anyone else tried removing -fno-stack-protector to see if
    >> things work correctly on Fedora 9 or 10?  Its possible they might.
    >>
    >> If somebody can point to the proper way to resolve the linkage problem,
    >> without also breaking things for platforms w/o stack-protector support in
    >> gcc, then I'd be happy to apply the fix.
    >>
    > 
    > I could try it, but how does it break?  I'm asking because if it only breaks 
    > on some arch, does it break in compile?  Or only runtime?  If the former, I 
    > could easily try to build it using the compile farms already available.  If it 
    > only breaks in testing, I'd have to do some more.
    > 
    
    Neal,
    
       Please see the BLCR bug report for details on the original failure: 
    http://upc-bugs.lbl.gov/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1854
    
    When trying to restore -fstack-protector, note that there are two one-line 
    changes required (see attached patch).
    
    -Paul
    
    
    
    -- 
    Paul H. Hargrove                          PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov
    Future Technologies Group
    HPC Research Department                   Tel: +1-510-495-2352
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory     Fax: +1-510-486-6900
    
    Index: configure.ac
    ===================================================================
    RCS file: /var/local/cvs/lbnl_cr/configure.ac,v
    retrieving revision 1.408
    diff -u -r1.408 configure.ac
    --- configure.ac	17 Dec 2008 04:02:37 -0000	1.408
    +++ configure.ac	22 Dec 2008 19:58:39 -0000
    @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@
     CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS=""
     CR_TRY_GCC_FLAG([-Wall], [CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS="$CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS -Wall"])
     CR_TRY_GCC_FLAG([-Wno-unused-function], [CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS="$CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS -Wno-unused-function"])
    -CR_TRY_GCC_FLAG([-fno-stack-protector], [CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS="$CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS -fno-stack-protector"])
    +#CR_TRY_GCC_FLAG([-fno-stack-protector], [CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS="$CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS -fno-stack-protector"])
     AC_SUBST(CR_LIBCR_CFLAGS)
     fi # cr_build_libcr
     
    Index: libcr/Makefile.am
    ===================================================================
    RCS file: /var/local/cvs/lbnl_cr/libcr/Makefile.am,v
    retrieving revision 1.30
    diff -u -r1.30 Makefile.am
    --- libcr/Makefile.am	11 Dec 2008 06:46:23 -0000	1.30
    +++ libcr/Makefile.am	22 Dec 2008 19:58:39 -0000
    @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
     CR_LIB_VERSION = -version-info @LIBTOOL_INTERFACE@:@LIBTOOL_REVISION@:@LIBTOOL_AGE@
     
     # For bug 1854: must squash -fstack-protector when building the shared library
    -override CFLAGS := $(shell echo '$(CFLAGS)' | sed 's/-fstack-protector\(-all\)\?//g;')
    +#override CFLAGS := $(shell echo '$(CFLAGS)' | sed 's/-fstack-protector\(-all\)\?//g;')
     
     noinst_HEADERS = \
     		cr_syscall.h\
    

  • Next message: Paul H. Hargrove: "Re: Fwd: [Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux"