[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#312936: Programmes linked against libacl1 segfault in libacl1 code.

Hi there,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:39:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> > I've just upgraded my system from woody to sarge.  Among other upgrade 
> > problems I noticed that programmes like cp, mv and install were occasionally 
> > segfaulting (and the packages that were invoking them failing to get 

Could you try running cp (or getfacl, might be easier) via gdb
and getting a gdb stack trace from one of these segfaults?  That
might give some more clues as to where the problem lies.

Since I've not seen this on any other platform, including the more
widely-used ones like i386, I'm guessing theres going to be something
about the arm platform thats triggering this - maybe an endian issue,
or a 32/64 bit sort of issue.

> >         libacl.so.1 => /lib/libacl.so.1 (0x40026000)
> >         libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40034000)
> >         libattr.so.1 => /lib/libattr.so.1 (0x40159000)
> >         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
> >         libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40164000)
> > Recompiling libacl1 (itself an awkward task since the package itself 
> > segfaults in the middle when it is doing something to the postinst script)

Hmm, its not doing anything "special" there, so I guess we're
probably just seeing the same problem again - calls to cp or mv
in the scripts segfaulting.

> > and installing the recompiled version fixes the problem.

Oh, that is interesting.  Maybe this is a gcc-arm problem, i.e. it
could have something to do with the version of gcc in use on the
build machine when this was built.  So, this may in fact be a
compiler problem...?

In fact, if recompiling makes the problem go away, I think by
definition the problem cannot be in the acl/libacl1 packages,
right?  Maybe I'm overlooking something though.

> Do you know if upgrading to the 2.4 kernel version available in sarge makes
> a difference here? 

Anything specific you're looking for there Steve?  I know the ACL
kernel patches fairly well, and nothing has changed for years now
so I'd be surprised if a kernel upgrade changed anything.  Also,
the 2.4 kernels don't tend to have ACL support, although I guess
we may have patched our 2.4 kernels to include that, not sure.



Attachment: pgpY_b4p_lSeG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: