This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[PATCH v2] gdb.python/py-unwind: Disable stack protection


[I made some typo fixes but forgot to amend my commit before sending the patch,
 hence this v2.]

I see the following failure on Ubuntu 16.04's gcc 5.4.0:

Running /home/emaisin/src/binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind.exp ...
FAIL: gdb.python/py-unwind.exp: continue to breakpoint: break backtrace-broken
FAIL: gdb.python/py-unwind.exp: Backtrace restored by unwinder (pattern 1)

The problem is that the test expects a very particular stack layout.
When stack protection is enabled, it adds a canary value which looks
like an additional local variable.  This makes the test complain about
a bad stack layout and fail.

The simple solution is to disable stack protection for that test using
-fno-stack-protector.  I checked older compilers (gcc 4.4, clang 3.5)
and they support that flag, so I don't think it's necessary to probe for
whether the compiler supports it.

Maybe a better solution would be to change the test to make it cope with
different stack layouts (perhaps it could save addresses of stuff in
some global variables which GDB/the unwinder would read).  I'll go with
the simple solution for now though.

gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	* gdb.python/py-unwind.exp: Disable stack protection when
	building test file.
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind.exp | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind.exp
index 625b04c..86e695c 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-unwind.exp
@@ -20,7 +20,12 @@ load_lib gdb-python.exp
 
 standard_testfile
 
-if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${testfile} ${srcfile}] } {
+# Stack protection can make the stack look a bit different, breaking the
+# assumptions this test has about its layout.
+
+set flags "additional_flags=-fno-stack-protector"
+
+if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${testfile} ${srcfile} "debug $flags"] } {
     return -1
 }
 
-- 
2.7.4


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]