-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
os: nonzero exit status mishandled on OpenBSD before 009_exit syspatch #42542
Comments
@golang/release, you might consider marking this builder with a KnownIssue until this is resolved. Based on the status of #31656, it appears that this port is incomplete and not yet supported. |
FWIW the port is complete (has been for a long time) - the only reason it is not yet supported was due to the lack of a builder, which has now been addressed. Re this specific issue, the failures are all
If my suspicion is correct, this will clear as the next builds occur. |
Interesting - the OpenBSD 6.8 openbsd/386 and openbsd/amd64 new builders are showing the same symptoms, so this is presumably not openbsd/arm64 specific. |
I've confirmed that this is an issue with the OpenBSD kernel - a fix has been manually applied to the openbsd/arm64 builder and I'm hoping that a syspatch can be made available for it soon. |
Change https://golang.org/cl/277115 mentions this issue: |
For golang/go#35712. Updates golang/go#42542. Updates golang/go#42426. Change-Id: Ifbdd025b8d1708e715ba312c438f391e1aeaeff8 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/build/+/277115 Trust: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org> Run-TryBot: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Joel Sing <joel@sing.id.au>
Change https://golang.org/cl/278732 mentions this issue: |
syspatch is currently being invoked at the end of the installation, which means we're trying to patch the installation ramdisk kernel, rather than the generic kernel. Instead, invoke syspatch during the first boot of the generic kernel. Move pkg_add as well, since that is also generally safer to run outside of the installation. Update golang/go#35712 Update golang/go#42542 Change-Id: Icbb384816de5859078a0183919626d223fb0060f Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/build/+/278732 Trust: Joel Sing <joel@sing.id.au> Reviewed-by: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org>
Change https://golang.org/cl/279134 mentions this issue: |
These images were regenerated after the fix in CL 278732. For golang/go#35712. Updates golang/go#42542. Updates golang/go#42426. Change-Id: Ib9c9dc316e4f68e7fed2cafe5400942a94ba8fd2 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/build/+/279134 Trust: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org> Run-TryBot: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Joel Sing <joel@sing.id.au>
Change https://golang.org/cl/279512 mentions this issue: |
I understand this was determined to be an issue in the OpenBSD kernel, which should be resolved via the 009_exit syspatch. Can this issue be closed, or is there more left to do here? |
The known issue with OpenBSD 6.8 builders appears to be resolved via CL 278732 and CL 279134. Promote them to the primary OpenBSD post-submit builders and TryBots. Having test coverage from OpenBSD 6.8 and 6.4 builders gives us us more confidence that Go works on supported OpenBSD versions (which are 6.8 and 6.7 at this time, per past policy decision in https://golang.org/issue/15227#issuecomment-293319876). Reduce numTryTestHelpers from 5 to 4 based on some data from golang.org/issue/37439 showing that going from 3 to 5 helpers doesn't make a significant difference. We can adjust further if we learn that OpenBSD TryBots become the bottleneck. Fixes golang/go#35712. For golang/go#42542. For golang/go#42064. Updates golang/go#42426. Change-Id: Id2fa4be7c3161f89752c1428146846fe06ca63db Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/build/+/279512 Run-TryBot: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Carlos Amedee <carlos@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Alexander Rakoczy <alex@golang.org> Trust: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org>
@dmitshur - correct, as far as I'm concerned this can be closed. |
Thank you for your work on this Joel, and Bryan for catching and reporting the issue. |
cmd/go
callsos.Exit
with a nonzero status code on failure:go/src/cmd/go/internal/base/base.go
Line 102 in 0e953ad
The
cmd/go
tests useos/exec
to execute subprocesses, and check them for the expected exit status:go/src/cmd/go/script_test.go
Line 1183 in e75aef8
Tests that expect nonzero exit status are failing frequently on the
openbsd-arm64-jsing
builder (CC @4a6f656c), which suggests that eitheros.Exit
is not consistently causing the process to exit with the correct status, or(*os.Process).Wait
is not consistently reporting the correct status.It is not clear to me whether this is a bug in the Go standard library or the OpenBSD kernel.
2020-11-12T10:22:50-d7974c3/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-11T20:51:00-141fa33/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-10T18:03:53-1948c00/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-10T04:11:42-1642cd7/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-09T21:36:24-d361691/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-09T21:03:36-d495712/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-09T19:00:00-01cdd36/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-09T17:38:50-a6462a6/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-09T13:12:41-2231243/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-07T16:59:55-5e371e0/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-07T03:52:47-d51ae66/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-06T19:42:05-362d25f/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-06T15:33:23-d21af00/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T23:21:33-ecc3f51/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T22:14:40-8e5778e/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T17:52:17-06538fa/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T16:47:45-a19a4dc/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T16:47:18-0c86172/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T16:46:56-04b5b4f/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T16:43:34-40f0359/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T16:20:01-8ab8125/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T14:54:35-74ec40f/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T10:46:08-3510a1e/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T02:28:14-1e3b535/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-05T00:21:39-c018eec/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-04T21:02:29-e4b4e4b/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-03T23:05:51-e1b305a/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-03T21:43:30-da7aa86/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-03T01:27:45-cc0930c/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-02T21:10:41-ac766e3/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-02T21:08:14-4fcb506/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-02T15:41:00-33d9251/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-11-02T15:40:28-202aa08/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-10-31T00:17:28-07e4f0f/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-10-30T21:14:09-f96b62b/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-10-29T19:06:32-5cc43c5/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-10-29T01:50:09-308ec22/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-10-28T19:19:18-1090f09/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-10-28T17:10:08-642329f/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-10-28T05:02:44-150d244/openbsd-arm64-jsing
2020-10-17T19:22:49-30119bc/openbsd-arm64-jsing
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: