[Bug 1091186] Please test proposed package

[Colin Watson]

Hello Linaro, or anyone else affected,

Accepted eglibc into quantal-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at http://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eglibc/2.15-0ubuntu20.1
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package.  See
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to
enable and use -proposed.  Your feedback will aid us getting this update
out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug,
mentioning the version of the package you tested, and change the tag
from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not fix the
bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to
verification-failed.  In either case, details of your testing will help
us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification .  Thank you in
advance!

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to eglibc in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1091186

Title:
  Backport upstream bug 13844 - fix for futex issue

Status in Embedded GLIBC:
  Fix Released
Status in “eglibc” package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in “eglibc” source package in Precise:
  Fix Committed
Status in “eglibc” source package in Quantal:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  [Impact / Justification]
  There was a bug in glibc where custom lowlevellock implementations weren't being used, but rather the generic one was instead.  This was a non-issue on most arches, however hppa, ARM, and Sparc needed their own custom implementation to have sane futexes.  The patch from upstream fixes this by swapping a "" include for a <> include, which correctly walks sysdeps paths and grabs the arch-specific implementations.

  [Test Case]
  I don't personally have a good test for this, but there are several people very keen on having this fix in that will test quite heavily on my behalf, I'm told.  I'll make sure they do so (and bonus points if they document their testcase)...

  [Regression Potential]
  This patch has zero effect on i386, x86_64, and powerpc, and the architecture this does effect (armel/armhf) was quite fundamentally broken, apparently, so the only risk here is that it remains broken, which I'm told by people who've already tested, it won't.

  [Original Report]
  There is a subtle futex bug in glibc 2.15 which is fixed dealt with by BZ #13844 (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13844).

  This is being hit regularly when testing locks on ARM.

  Can this be backported to precise and quantal (which I believe are
  both 2.15 based)?

  The patch is here:
  http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=7e7fa5f8719c0a497f4b262e6fb5625c13b6c22e

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/eglibc/+bug/1091186/+subscriptions