llvm dev - Sep 2017 - sanitizer test case failures after OS update

On 9/13/17 10:31 AM, Peter Bergner via llvm-dev wrote:
> On 9/12/17 8:15 PM, Bill Seurer via llvm-dev wrote:
>> I updated one of my powerpc64le llvm test systems to Fedora 25 and I
>> started getting a whole bunch of sanitizer test case failures.  I tried
>> testing some earlier revisions on the new OS that had worked fine under
>> the old but they generate the same errors now so it isn't any
changes in
>> llvm.
>>
>> There are two different errors:
>>
>> FATAL: ThreadSanitizer: unsupported VMA range
>> FATAL: Found 47 - Supported 44 and 46
> 
> This looks to be due to the new kernel using 47 bits for addressing
> and the ppc specific ASAN code is only setup to handle 44 or 46.
> Talking with Steve Munroe, he says there is some work (already done?)
> to handle 48 and 49 bits as well.  We'll need a change ASAN to
> handle those extra bits.  It would be nice if we could just detect
> what the value is and use that, rather than having fixed specific
> values we know about and handle.
Oops, I meant TSAN above, although ASAN has similar code and
restrictions IIRC.

Peter

On 09/13/2017 10:42 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 9/13/17 10:31 AM, Peter Bergner via llvm-dev wrote:
>> On 9/12/17 8:15 PM, Bill Seurer via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> I updated one of my powerpc64le llvm test systems to Fedora 25 and
I
>>> started getting a whole bunch of sanitizer test case failures.  I
tried
>>> testing some earlier revisions on the new OS that had worked fine
under
>>> the old but they generate the same errors now so it isn't any
changes in
>>> llvm.
>>>
>>> There are two different errors:
>>>
>>> FATAL: ThreadSanitizer: unsupported VMA range
>>> FATAL: Found 47 - Supported 44 and 46
>>
>> This looks to be due to the new kernel using 47 bits for addressing
>> and the ppc specific ASAN code is only setup to handle 44 or 46.
>> Talking with Steve Munroe, he says there is some work (already done?)
>> to handle 48 and 49 bits as well.  We'll need a change ASAN to
>> handle those extra bits.  It would be nice if we could just detect
>> what the value is and use that, rather than having fixed specific
>> values we know about and handle.
> 
> Oops, I meant TSAN above, although ASAN has similar code and
> restrictions IIRC.

Ok.  Note that I also see these failures after an Ubuntu 16.04 kernel 
update.

-- 

-Bill Seurer

Yes, it's the kernel. See https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/856.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Bill Seurer via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 09/13/2017 10:42 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>
>> On 9/13/17 10:31 AM, Peter Bergner via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/12/17 8:15 PM, Bill Seurer via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I updated one of my powerpc64le llvm test systems to Fedora 25
and I
>>>> started getting a whole bunch of sanitizer test case failures. 
I tried
>>>> testing some earlier revisions on the new OS that had worked
fine under
>>>> the old but they generate the same errors now so it isn't
any changes in
>>>> llvm.
>>>>
>>>> There are two different errors:
>>>>
>>>> FATAL: ThreadSanitizer: unsupported VMA range
>>>> FATAL: Found 47 - Supported 44 and 46
>>>
>>>
>>> This looks to be due to the new kernel using 47 bits for addressing
>>> and the ppc specific ASAN code is only setup to handle 44 or 46.
>>> Talking with Steve Munroe, he says there is some work (already
done?)
>>> to handle 48 and 49 bits as well.  We'll need a change ASAN to
>>> handle those extra bits.  It would be nice if we could just detect
>>> what the value is and use that, rather than having fixed specific
>>> values we know about and handle.
>>
>>
>> Oops, I meant TSAN above, although ASAN has similar code and
>> restrictions IIRC.
>
>
>
> Ok.  Note that I also see these failures after an Ubuntu 16.04 kernel
> update.
>
> --
>
> -Bill Seurer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev