X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 11D483861810
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org;
	dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=maxrnd.com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=mark AT maxrnd DOT com
Subject:	Re: segfault on 32bit cygwin snapshot
From:	Mark Geisert <mark AT maxrnd DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<YD5eXbxBWbUUSwcM AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<20210303185621 DOT b048287526901af6a4c8200a AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<YD9sSea32T7GqlJr AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<20210304180534 DOT 7c3825e6ee989a2bf62f0652 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<CAB8Xom-HwxH9LnbLL8cAoXh60tjU592T6XFEDJzvhv28Do-UsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20210304205000 DOT 4ac34afe1a8b767ea2986291 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<b7338aaa-c1e1-1816-35f8-666c2f6ac618 AT cornell DOT edu>
	<98df59b3-a139-03d2-c8c5-31ff4f8448ab AT gmail DOT com>
	<625cb9d2-b6cc-3ada-eea9-44a5e73da17c AT gmail DOT com>
	<72a86908-e150-2070-24f7-79ca82de9916 AT maxrnd DOT com>
	<YEJDaQQ+U/+j3uQb AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<Pine DOT BSF DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 2103051447400 DOT 41714 AT m0 DOT truegem DOT net>
Message-ID:	<7b34da67-7550-765b-3731-31b51b2a5df9@maxrnd.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Mar 2021 03:07:38 -0800
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.4
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.BSF.4.63.2103051447400.41714@m0.truegem.net>
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS,
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,
	SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.29
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 128B7n1o025224

Following up to myself...

Mark Geisert wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
> 
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2021, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Mar  5 01:11, Mark Geisert wrote:
>>> Marco Atzeri via Cygwin wrote:
>>>> On 04.03.2021 21:17, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>>>> On 04.03.2021 16:17, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2021 6:50 AM, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 12:11:11 +0100
>>>>>>> marco atzeri wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have no problem to patch Python to solve the issue,
>>>>>>>> but I have not seen evidence of the dlsym mechanism .
>>>>>>>> But of course I an NOT and expert in this field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If someone looking to the code can give me some hints,
>>>>>>>> I will appreciate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am also not sure where the dlsym() is used in python.
>>>>>>> At least, os.uname() works in python 3.8.7 and 2.7.18 in my
>>>>>>> environment even without that snippet. It seems that os.uname()
>>>>>>> does not use dlsym(). Do I overlook something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This all started because Mark reported a problem building python 3.8.3:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/2020-December/040765.html
>>>>>> https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-developers/2020-December/012019.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's strange that Marco never bumped into the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> I never built python using cygwin snapshots as Mark was trying to do,
>>>>> all my builds were using 3.1.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me set a separate enviroment for building on latest snapshot
>>>>
>>>> I can not replicate with latest snapshot
>>>>
>>>> $ uname -svr
>>>> CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW 3.2.0s(0.340/5/3) 2021-03-01 15:42
>>>>
>>>> nor in 64bit when building 3.8.8
>>>>
>>>> For what I see the DLL is always using a proper import
>>>> from cygwin1.dll
>>>>
>>>> $ objdump -x libpython3.8.dll |grep uname
>>>>          2b9de0   2170  uname
>>>>          2b9de8   2171  uname_x
>>>>
>>>> the only thing not standard on my build system is a case sensitive
>>>> filesystem and mount
>>>
>>> I had concerns that I had somehow corrupted my build environment, and it was
>>> Marco's successes that convinced me to reinstall 3.1.7 to recover a
>>> known-good environment.  Then seeing Marco go ahead and release the
>>> different Python releases (yay!) I didn't investigate any further.
>>>
>>> I'm now trying to locate the os.uname usage of dlopen/dlsym again just for
>>> the record but am having some difficulty.  I'll reply again when I've got
>>> it.
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> if it turns out that we fixed a problem that doesn't actually is a
>> real-world problem, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just revert the Cygwin
>> patch we're talking about here (commit 532b91d24e9496) and be done with
>> it.
>>
>> Special casing dynamic loading of uname just to support some experimental
>> bordercase doesn't make much sense.  In that case I'm all for "don't do
>> that"!
> 
> That may well be the appropriate endpoint, but please let me dig a little further 
> into the recent Python versions.  The fact that they had an explicit dlopen/dlsym 
> to get at uname(), but now they don't, troubles me. I want to be sure us Cygwin 
> folk aren't in an inadvertent "arms race" with the Python devs over the uname API 
> change.  Dunno why this didn't occur 15+ years ago, but here we are.
> 
> I think it was in Python's Modules/posixmodule.c.  They're certainly using uname() 
> directly in their most recent builds.  But I believe that wasn't always the case, 
> even just a few months ago.  Let me dig for a day or two.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I now believe I hit the issue I reported 
due to my own corrupted build environment.  Marco and Ken have both built recent 
Python packages on Cygwin 3.1.7 and proto-3.2.0 respectively, Ken having reverted 
the commit you're talking about (not sure about Marco).  Both had success.

I believe reverting that commit 532b91d24e9496 is the correct action to take.

..mark
--
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -