Make Linker.isUsed() static, and clean up the fallout.

Make Linker.isUsed() static, and clean up the fallout.

Make Linker.isUsed() static, so that client code no longer needs to
instantiate a Linker simply to find out that one is not used.
Clean up call sites to avoid nugatory instantiations.

Fix a race that occurred in testing code (prevalent on arm64 but
unseen on arm32) because of the previous non-static Linker.isUsed(),
add Linker testing convenience setup function, and clean up client
code that must configure a Linker for testing if required.

Enable testing for arm64, and check that it now works cleanly.

Tidy up a few method names and string formatting. Add a previously
missing synchronized(singletonLock).

BUG=385553
Committed: https://crrev.com/51958d6ded60cc90a9814220c55db2a8dce0d181
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#346700}

[simonb (inactive), 2015-08-27 15:58:31]

simonb@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ petrcermak@chromium.org, rmcilroy@chromium.org

[petrcermak, 2015-08-27 18:52:11]

LGTM with one comment.

Thanks,
Petr

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/public/android/java...
File
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/app/ChildProcessService.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/public/android/java...
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/app/ChildProcessService.java:189:
if (!isLoaded && requestedSharedRelro) {
maybe check linker != null for safety here?

[petrcermak, 2015-08-27 18:53:37]

one more nit: s/cleanup/clean up/ in the title and description

Thanks,
Petr

[simonb (inactive), 2015-08-27 20:42:22]

On 2015/08/27 18:53:37, petrcermak wrote:
> one more nit: s/cleanup/clean up/ in the title and description
> 
> Thanks,
> Petr

Done.

[simonb (inactive), 2015-08-27 21:06:04]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/public/android/java...
File
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/app/ChildProcessService.java
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/public/android/java...
content/public/android/java/src/org/chromium/content/app/ChildProcessService.java:189:
if (!isLoaded && requestedSharedRelro) {
On 2015/08/27 18:52:10, petrcermak wrote:
> maybe check linker != null for safety here?

requestedSharedRelro true but linker null would be a coding error.
assert(linker!=null) might make some sense, but probably not very effective
because assertions are rarely (if ever) enabled for chrome on Android.

[simonb (inactive), 2015-08-28 10:44:17]

simonb@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ sievers@chromium.org

[simonb (inactive), 2015-08-28 10:44:18]

+sievers@ for content/ review.

[rmcilroy, 2015-08-28 13:24:09]

lgtm, thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/content_tests.gypi
File content/content_tests.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/content_tests.gypi#...
content/content_tests.gypi:1957: ['target_arch != "x64"', {
Is there still a bug on x64 or can we remove this too? (Fine to do this in a
seperate CL).

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/shell/android/linke...
File content/shell/android/linker_test_apk/chromium_linker_test_linker_tests.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/shell/android/linke...
content/shell/android/linker_test_apk/chromium_linker_test_linker_tests.cc:83:
int num_bad_shared_relros = 0;
Just wondering why this change is necessary?

[simonb (inactive), 2015-08-28 14:00:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/content_tests.gypi
File content/content_tests.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/content_tests.gypi#...
content/content_tests.gypi:1957: ['target_arch != "x64"', {
On 2015/08/28 13:24:08, rmcilroy wrote:
> Is there still a bug on x64 or can we remove this too? (Fine to do this in a
> seperate CL).

Just not tested on x64 yet (lack of time). It's on my todo list...

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/shell/android/linke...
File content/shell/android/linker_test_apk/chromium_linker_test_linker_tests.cc
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/diff/1/content/shell/android/linke...
content/shell/android/linker_test_apk/chromium_linker_test_linker_tests.cc:83:
int num_bad_shared_relros = 0;
On 2015/08/28 13:24:08, rmcilroy wrote:
> Just wondering why this change is necessary?

VLOG at line 166 formats these with %d. On arm32/ILP32 size_t and int are 32'
and %d generates no compile error, but on arm64/LP32 size_t is 64' but int 32',
triggering -Wformat. (Values held here are typically in the range 0..2!)

[simonb (inactive), 2015-08-28 14:08:14]

On 2015/08/28 14:00:42, simonb wrote:
> 
> VLOG at line 166 formats these with %d. On arm32/ILP32 size_t and int are 32'
> and %d generates no compile error, but on arm64/LP32 size_t is 64' but int
32',

s/LP32/LP64

> triggering -Wformat. (Values held here are typically in the range 0..2!)

[no sievers, 2015-08-28 23:23:39]

content lgtm

[simonb (inactive), 2015-09-01 17:37:35]

The CQ bit was checked by simonb@chromium.org

[simonb (inactive), 2015-09-01 17:37:35]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
rmcilroy@chromium.org, petrcermak@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1314823003/#ps20001
(title: "Tiny log tweak, protected->private, rebase to master.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-01 17:38:03]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1314823003/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1314823003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-01 19:04:48]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-09-01 19:05:27]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/51958d6ded60cc90a9814220c55db2a8dce0d181
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#346700}