Bug#272654: update from 2.2.5-11.2 to 2.3.2.ds1-16 breaks statically-linked program
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-16
Severity: normal
Hello,
I'm running a Debian 3.0 r1 system and wanted to upgrade libc6 from
2.2.5-11.2 to the version in "testing" (2.3.2.ds1-16). This seemed
to work fine, but then a statically-linked program which is part of
my backup pipeline dumped core. (Source code, binary, and core file
are available on request.)
Gdb shows the following stack trace:
#0 0x00000000 in ?? ()
#1 0x40167345 in ?? ()
#2 0x40130788 in ?? ()
#3 0x4010f298 in ?? ()
#4 0x4000d38c in ?? ()
#5 0x4000ef09 in ?? ()
#6 0x08058239 in getpwuid_r ()
#7 0x08057f5f in getpwuid ()
#8 0x08048699 in schreibe_tar_Praefix (aus=3, Blockgroesse=10240, Daten=0xbffffa40) at blocke.c:265
#9 0x08049a2c in main (argc=4, argv=0xbffffac4) at blocke.c:793
I recovered /lib from a previous backup into a separate directory
and called the program with LD_LIBRARY_PATH set to this new
directory: it worked as expected. Linking dynamically also produced
a working program.
I have since downgraded to the older libc6 version and the problem
is gone. (Incidentally, downgrading did not happen without problems:
a broken pipe in a command called by apt-get prevented execution.
Deleting the entries for /lib/libdb* from libdb1-compat.list led to
success.)
Before downgrading, I saved the /lib hierarchy. After the downgrade
I ran my program with LD_LIBRARY_PATH set to this directory: the core
happens.
Although I no longer personally have a problem, I thought I'ld better
report this in case other people run into it, too. Also, I'ld *really*
like to understand how installing a new libc6 package can affect a
program without dynamic dependencies :-).
Yours sincerely,
Martin Lottermoser
--
Martin Lottermoser Martin.Lottermoser@t-online.de
Greifswaldstrasse 28
38124 Braunschweig Telephone: +49 (531) 6802747
Germany
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux wanza 2.4.23 #30 Mon Jul 5 18:58:11 CEST 2004 i686
Locale: LANG=de_DE, LC_CTYPE=de_DE
Reply to: