On 2023/02/20 10:46, Stephan Somogyi wrote:
> On aarch64 on a RPi3, somewhere between 7.2-current GENERIC.MP#2028 and
> GENERIC.MP#2033, and the package snapshots that happened around the #2033
> time,something changed that causes persistent segfaulting while executing a
> perl script that's been unchanged for a year.

The kernel build numbers aren't really helpful in identifying when these
snapshots were built; dates would be better

First off, assuming you're now on a system which is after the perl
update, make sure you updated all packages and don't have old XS modules
lying around; you should get no results from

grep '@wantlib perl.22.0' /var/db/pkg/*/+CONTENTS

(Or if you've built your own Perl native extensions from outside of
packages then they'll want rebuilding)

> The segfault happens when python3 scripts are invoked from within the perl
> script. I'm invoking the python3 scripts via system(); when I then SIGINT
> via Ctrl-C, the traceback is from within python3.10, suggesting that
> something that python is sub-launching might be causing the problem, but my
> understanding of python internals is basically zero.
> 
> If I manually invoke either of the python scripts with identical
> parameters, everything works, so it's not an innate problem with those
> scripts or their interaction with python3.10; it's something about how
> they're being invoked from perl.
> 
> I've tried building minimal repro case perl scripts and am so far
> unsuccessful; everything works without segfaulting.
> 
> I've done enough isolation work now that I'm running into my limits of
> knowledge and was curious whether this recent behavior rings a bell with
> anyone here. Grasping at straws, but could this have anything to do with
> the xonly work?
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions for how to better identify the root cause and
> thus generate a more useful bug report.

A backtrace from the segfault might give some clues (pkg_add gdb and
use the 'egdb' binary; the version of gdb that is in base is not really
useful in most cases any more)

Reply via email to