Re: Bug#666391: valgrind: 64-bit valgrind can not run 32-bit binary due to missing/incorrect debug symbols
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:47:14AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0200, Sebastian Rasmussen wrote:
> > I have problems running 32-bit binaries in my 64-bit valgrind, however
> > this likely a bug related to eglibc or possibly in how valgrind
> > depends on eglibc's packages. I expect that both 32-bit and 64-bit
> > binaries can be run inside valgrind (or at least that there are
> > packages recommended by valgrind that I install to do so).
>
> The problem is there is not debug symbols packaged as a biarch package
> in Debian, meaning that valgrind is mostly useless used with libc6-i386.
> In other words there is no libc6-i386-dbg package as you note later:
>
> > For 64-bit binaries (shown above) /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so
> > (installed by libc6) does have a .gnu_debuglink section pointing to
> > the debug-version of located in /usr/lib/debug (more specifically
> > /usr/lib/debug/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so) which is installed by
> > libc6-dbg.
>
>
> To behave properly, you have two roads, either ask the libc maintainer
> to provide a libc6-i386-dbg package, which between us, wouldn't really
> be the proper way, or more simply, use multiarch.
>
> For that:
>
> # dpkg --add-architecture i386
> # apt-get update
> # apt-get install libc6-i686:i386 libc6-dbg:i386
>
> For *some* reason I don't really understand, the first time I ran your
> testing-32 I had to specify the full path to the ld.so in this fashion:
>
> $ valgrind /lib/i386-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so ./testing-32
>
> But it's now fine and runs properly when I just do:
> $ valgrind ./testing-32
>
> I've no real clue on *why* it didn't work the first time, probably some
> kind of ld.so.cache or something.
>
> I've put the glibc maintainer in the loop because it's not clear to me
> why "valgrind ./testing-32" failed in the first instance, maybe he'll
> have a clue, I suspect that "ldconfig" didn't do the right thing because
> of the fact that I have three libc's: libc6:amd64, libc6-i686:i386 and
> libc6-i386:amd64… and it probably picked the wrong ones.
If that helps:
ld.so.conf:include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf
ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:# Multiarch support
ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:/lib/i386-linux-gnu
ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu
ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:/lib/i486-linux-gnu
ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:/usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu
ld.so.conf.d/libc.conf:# libc default configuration
ld.so.conf.d/libc.conf:/usr/local/lib
ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf:# Multiarch support
ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf:/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf:/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
ld.so.conf.d/zz_i386-biarch-compat.conf:# Legacy biarch compatibility support
ld.so.conf.d/zz_i386-biarch-compat.conf:/lib32
ld.so.conf.d/zz_i386-biarch-compat.conf:/usr/lib32
Though I'm totally unable to reproduce it so maybe we can waive it as a
spurious bug.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Reply to: