diff mbox series

[kirkstone] glibc: stable 2.35 branch updates

Message ID 20240925131141.3655587-1-Deepthi.Hemraj@windriver.com
State Accepted, archived
Commit 05760b29576aa8797bbae2e9a1a6a44d3c6aa97e
Delegated to: Steve Sakoman
Headers show
Series [kirkstone] glibc: stable 2.35 branch updates | expand

Commit Message

Hemraj, Deepthi Sept. 25, 2024, 1:11 p.m. UTC 
From: Deepthi Hemraj <Deepthi.Hemraj@windriver.com>

Below commits on glibc-2.35 stable branch are updated.
37214df5f1 libio: Attempt wide backup free only for non-legacy code
09fb06d3d6 nptl: Use <support/check.h> facilities in tst-setuid3
507983797e posix: Use <support/check.h> facilities in tst-truncate and tst-truncate64
bcd0e854ea ungetc: Fix backup buffer leak on program exit [BZ #27821]
e930b89df7 ungetc: Fix uninitialized read when putting into unused streams [BZ #27821]
a3db6ce751 Make tst-ungetc use libsupport
ed9762fdbf stdio-common: Add test for vfscanf with matches longer than INT_MAX [BZ #27650]
cf71d2189c support: Add FAIL test failure helper
5b4e90230b stdio-common: Reformat Makefile.
3c64e961ff Fix name space violation in fortify wrappers (bug 32052)
ba003ee5de resolv: Fix tst-resolv-short-response for older GCC (bug 32042)
5a1d0633be Add mremap tests
0ff91d3961 mremap: Update manual entry
7459b6fe47 linux: Update the mremap C implementation [BZ #31968]
461d0cac38 tests: replace system by xsystem
041ac9dffe resolv: Track single-request fallback via _res._flags (bug 31476)
820a750bed resolv: Do not wait for non-existing second DNS response after error (bug 30081)
4f5aa1d2fb resolv: Allow short error responses to match any query (bug 31890)
a180e82837 Linux: Make __rseq_size useful for feature detection (bug 31965)
f8a52d39c0 elf: Make dl-rseq-symbols Linux only
d36daa4c01 nptl: fix potential merge of __rseq_* relro symbols
602fff4efa Add AT_RSEQ_* from Linux 6.3 to elf.h
c7cd626538 s390x: Fix segfault in wcsncmp [BZ #31934]

Signed-off-by: Deepthi Hemraj <Deepthi.Hemraj@windriver.com>
---
 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-version.inc | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Hemraj, Deepthi Sept. 25, 2024, 1:16 p.m. UTC | #1 
Testing was done and below are the test results:
*After update:*
PASS - 4779
FAIL - 147
XPASS - 6
XFAIL - 16
UNSUPPORTED - 237

*Before update:*
PASS - 4770
FAIL - 148
XPASS - 6
XFAIL - 16
UNSUPPORTED - 237

Below is the failing testcase
FAIL: nptl/tst-thread-affinity-sched
Khem Raj Sept. 25, 2024, 3:17 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 6:16 AM Hemraj, Deepthi via
lists.openembedded.org
<Deepthi.Hemraj=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
> Testing was done and below are the test results:
> After update:
> PASS - 4779
> FAIL - 147
> XPASS - 6
> XFAIL - 16
> UNSUPPORTED - 237
>
> Before update:
> PASS - 4770
> FAIL - 148
> XPASS - 6
> XFAIL - 16
> UNSUPPORTED - 237
>
> Below is the failing testcase
> FAIL: nptl/tst-thread-affinity-sched

Is this regression ? and is it a persistent failure ?

>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#204954): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/204954
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108647219/1997914
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [raj.khem@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
Hemraj, Deepthi Sept. 26, 2024, 5:34 a.m. UTC | #3 
The test case nptl/tst-thread-affinity-sched is an additional failure and represents a regression
Steve Sakoman Sept. 27, 2024, 12:56 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:34 PM Hemraj, Deepthi via
lists.openembedded.org
<Deepthi.Hemraj=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
> The test case nptl/tst-thread-affinity-sched is an additional failure and represents a regression

I will add this to my test queue, but we should deal with the
regression before I can merge this.

Steve

>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#204968): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/204968
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108647219/3620601
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [steve@sakoman.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
Hemraj, Deepthi Oct. 3, 2024, 11:22 a.m. UTC | #5 
Hi Khem & Steve,

Thanks for checking out the results and your comments.

>>Is this regression? and is it a persistent failure?

We analyzed the issue further by debugging it manually and observed that the testcase " nptl/tst-thread-affinity-sched.c" passed as expected. Hence, we ran the testsuite again after the update and found that the issue was not reproduced anymore.
Please find the following results after the update which has 2 less failures than the results before update.
*After Update*
PASS - 4781
FAIL - 145
XPASS - 6
XFAIL - 16
UNSUPPORTED - 237

*Before update:*
PASS - 4770
FAIL - 148
XPASS - 6
XFAIL - 16
UNSUPPORTED - 237

*Diff:*
PASS - +11
FAIL - -3
XPASS - 0
XFAIL - 0
UNSUPPORTED - 0
Khem Raj Oct. 3, 2024, 2:38 p.m. UTC | #6 
On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 4:22 AM Hemraj, Deepthi via
lists.openembedded.org
<Deepthi.Hemraj=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Khem & Steve,
>
> Thanks for checking out the results and your comments.
>
> >>Is this regression? and is it a persistent failure?
>
> We analyzed the issue further by debugging it manually and observed that the testcase "nptl/tst-thread-affinity-sched.c" passed as expected. Hence, we ran the testsuite again after the update and found that the issue was not reproduced anymore.

Thanks, I wonder why it failed the first time. Was the system running
these suites overloaded ?, I would like to see if there is a pattern
to these failures.
for now this looks ok to me to apply.

> Please find the following results after the update which has 2 less failures than the results before update.
> After Update
> PASS - 4781
> FAIL - 145
> XPASS - 6
> XFAIL - 16
> UNSUPPORTED - 237
>
> Before update:
> PASS - 4770
> FAIL - 148
> XPASS - 6
> XFAIL - 16
> UNSUPPORTED - 237
>
> Diff:
> PASS - +11
> FAIL - -3
> XPASS - 0
> XFAIL - 0
> UNSUPPORTED - 0
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#205206): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/205206
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108647219/1997914
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [raj.khem@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
Randy MacLeod Nov. 14, 2024, 10:27 p.m. UTC | #7 
Add Steve, Ross and Stephan.

On 2024-10-03 10:38 a.m., Khem Raj via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 4:22 AM Hemraj, Deepthi via
> lists.openembedded.org
> <Deepthi.Hemraj=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>> Hi Khem & Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for checking out the results and your comments.
>>
>>>> Is this regression? and is it a persistent failure?
>> We analyzed the issue further by debugging it manually and observed that the testcase "nptl/tst-thread-affinity-sched.c" passed as expected. Hence, we ran the testsuite again after the update and found that the issue was not reproduced anymore.
> Thanks, I wonder why it failed the first time. Was the system running
> these suites overloaded ?, I would like to see if there is a pattern
> to these failures.
> for now this looks ok to me to apply.

Interestingly (in a bad way!),
this regression may be related to a problem that Stephan just reported. See:

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15647

It seems that the problematic commit is:
a180e82837 Linux: Make __rseq_size useful for feature detection (bug 
31965) but let's get that confirmed in the bug report.


The lesson learned is that if there's a regression from a glibc update 
even a single intermittent failure,
we should spend more time investigating the problem.

Deepthi did re-run the tests both manually and as part of the test suite 
only to find that the issue
was not reproducible but in hindsight, we could have done more.

We'll work on improving our testing.

../Randy




>
>> Please find the following results after the update which has 2 less failures than the results before update.
>> After Update
>> PASS - 4781
>> FAIL - 145
>> XPASS - 6
>> XFAIL - 16
>> UNSUPPORTED - 237
>>
>> Before update:
>> PASS - 4770
>> FAIL - 148
>> XPASS - 6
>> XFAIL - 16
>> UNSUPPORTED - 237
>>
>> Diff:
>> PASS - +11
>> FAIL - -3
>> XPASS - 0
>> XFAIL - 0
>> UNSUPPORTED - 0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>> View/Reply Online (#205207):https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/205207
>> Mute This Topic:https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108647219/3616765
>> Group Owner:openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [randy.macleod@windriver.com]
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-version.inc b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-version.inc
index a5903bc5f4..dc18d20dd8 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-version.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-version.inc
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ 
 SRCBRANCH ?= "release/2.35/master"
 PV = "2.35"
-SRCREV_glibc ?= "72abffe225485d10ea76adde963c13157bf3b310"
+SRCREV_glibc ?= "37214df5f103f4075cf0a79a227e70f3e064701c"
 SRCREV_localedef ?= "794da69788cbf9bf57b59a852f9f11307663fa87"
 
 GLIBC_GIT_URI ?= "git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git"