Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?

Benjamin Kaduk
During some testing today, I ended up trying to do a build of 1.1.0b configured for linux-elf --debug (with no-asm to work around some issue that was not my primary concern at the time), which failed due to a missing -lefence.  The corresponding linux-x86_64 build on the same machine succeeds.

It seems that this happened as a result of commit 7910044064e106073c097a6940d25fe36401266b, "Find debug- targets that can be combined with their non-debug counterparts", which ended up moving the contents of the debug-linux-elf target from 90-team.conf to 10-main.conf where the linux-elf target lives.  Having electric fence enabled in a team-only configuration seems reasonable, but it's less clear that it's the right thing to do for a target in 10-main.conf, even when --debug is used.  (There is an explicit debug-linux-elf-noefence target in 90-team.conf, for what it's worth.)

Should the efence build be moved to a different target in 90-team.conf leaving the debug-version of linux-elf buildable in a more generic set of environments?

-Ben

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?

Salz, Rich
Is electric fence even available any more?  Just kill it.
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker-2
In reply to this post by Benjamin Kaduk
Actually, -lefence comes from much further back in time.  If you look
at the configuration strings in Configure in version 1.0.2, you'll
find debug-linux-elf, with that dreaded -lefence.  Back in that
version, ./config treats -d by prefixing the desired target with
'debug-', so 'debug-linux-elf' is the official debugging target for
'linux-elf'.

This was transferred to the new configuration hash by merging all
debug-FOO targets with their corresponding FOO targets and make
debugging and non-debugging variants of a number of settings.  Not
sure that I remember if or why 'debug-linux-elf' ended up in
90-team.conf...

Anyway, I assume that what you're really asking is if libefence should
be viewed as antique.  If nothing else, we could be a bit more
consistent (there is a lack of consistency between configuration
targets!)...  Me, I have no issues, removing -lefence from the debug
settings of 'linux-elf' and replace 'debug-linux-elf-noefence' with
'debug-linux-elf-efence'.

Cheers,
Richard

In message <[hidden email]> on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:00:36 -0500, Benjamin Kaduk <[hidden email]> said:

bkaduk> During some testing today, I ended up trying to do a build of 1.1.0b
bkaduk> configured for linux-elf --debug (with no-asm to work around some
bkaduk> issue that was not my primary concern at the time), which failed due
bkaduk> to a missing -lefence. The corresponding linux-x86_64 build on the
bkaduk> same machine succeeds.
bkaduk>
bkaduk> It seems that this happened as a result of commit
bkaduk> 7910044064e106073c097a6940d25fe36401266b, "Find debug- targets that
bkaduk> can be combined with their non-debug counterparts", which ended up
bkaduk> moving the contents of the debug-linux-elf target from 90-team.conf to
bkaduk> 10-main.conf where the linux-elf target lives. Having electric fence
bkaduk> enabled in a team-only configuration seems reasonable, but it's less
bkaduk> clear that it's the right thing to do for a target in 10-main.conf,
bkaduk> even when --debug is used. (There is an explicit
bkaduk> debug-linux-elf-noefence target in 90-team.conf, for what it's worth.)
bkaduk>
bkaduk> Should the efence build be moved to a different target in 90-team.conf
bkaduk> leaving the debug-version of linux-elf buildable in a more generic set
bkaduk> of environments?
bkaduk>
bkaduk> -Ben
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker-2
In reply to this post by Salz, Rich
In message <[hidden email]> on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 23:14:43 +0000, "Salz, Rich" <[hidden email]> said:

rsalz> Is electric fence even available any more?  Just kill it.

I just looked around, and it looks like you're right.  Awright, I'll
do the kill.

Cheers,
Richard

--
Richard Levitte         [hidden email]
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker-2
In message <[hidden email]> on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:21:55 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte <[hidden email]> said:

levitte> In message <[hidden email]> on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 23:14:43 +0000, "Salz, Rich" <[hidden email]> said:
levitte>
levitte> rsalz> Is electric fence even available any more?  Just kill it.
levitte>
levitte> I just looked around, and it looks like you're right.  Awright, I'll
levitte> do the kill.

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1768

Cheers,
Richard

--
Richard Levitte         [hidden email]
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: status of libefence (electric fence)

John Denker-2
In reply to this post by Salz, Rich
On 10/21/2016 04:14 PM, Salz, Rich asked:

> Is electric fence even available any more?

It's bundled with current Debian and Ubuntu.

From the README:
  "This version should run on all systems that support POSIX mmap() and
  mprotect(). This includes Linux, Unix, and I think even BeOS."

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev