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

Bug#308792: After the last update Via C3 systems give assertion failed in ld.so at boot



Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:39:23AM +0000, Anton Ivanov wrote:
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-21
Severity: critical



After the last update C3 Version 1

with a kernel 2.6 image will fail on boot with:

Inconsistency detected by ld.so: do_rel.h: 109 elf_dynamic_do_rel: Assertion '(map->l_info[(34+0+(0x6ffffff - (0x6ffffff0)))] != ((void *0))' failed!

Tested with the following 2.6 images: older 2.6.10-1-386 (subversion 2), current 2.6.10-1-386 (subversion 10) whatever the debian installer tries to put on the system when booted with 2.6 - most likely current 2.6.10-1-386 2.6.9 (686 config altered to optimize for 386).

with the default 2.4.18 image from woody will boot normally

with 2.6.10-2 and 2.6.9 will boot normally if the libc6 is 2.3.2.ds1-20 or earlier.

I am looking at the changelog for ds1-21 and so far I have no idea what could have caused it.

That's:

#ifdef RTLD_BOOTSTRAP
     /* The dynamic linker always uses versioning.  */
     assert (map->l_info[VERSYMIDX (DT_VERSYM)] != NULL);
#else

The problem is not going to be anywhere near there.  That is a check on
the ld.so binary, which works elsewhere.  Probably your mmap is busted.
I do not see anything that would cause this in -21 either.

I tested with a few more versions and some alternative hardware.

2.4.27 also does not boot unless you turn off ACPI and APIC. If you turn them off it boots.

All 2.6 images and 2.4.27 boot OK on C3 V2.

It starts looking like an an interaction of specific hardware and drivers - C3 V1, CMD649 ide and a few others. I still have no idea why does it bomb out in mmap/ldso. With a hardware problem I would have expected it to barf much earlier and in a more consistent manner.

A.

--
La Châtelier's Law: If some stress is brought to bear on a system in equilibrium, the equilibrium is displaced in the direction which tends to undo the effect of the stress.




Reply to: