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

Bug#806911: marked as done (libc-bin: ldconfig segfaults when run using "setarch uname26")

Your message dated Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:54:00 +0100
with message-id <Yfbs2IVuQoXyeX0n@aurel32.net>
and subject line Re: [Reproducible-builds] Bug#806911: Bug#806911: Bug#806911: Second build on failures
has caused the Debian Bug report #806911,
regarding libc-bin: ldconfig segfaults when run using "setarch uname26"
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
806911: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=806911
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: libc-bin
Version: 2.21-1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: reproducible-builds@lists.alioth.debian.org

Apparently, when run with "setarch uname26" or "linux64 --uname-2.6",
ldconfig segfaults.

  setarch uname26 ldconfig
  FATAL: kernel too old
  Segmentation fault

libc-bin version 2.19-22 in stretch does not segfault when run this
way.

I haven't tried, but this may also fail similarly when run on an old
kernel as well.

At the very least, maybe it shouldn't segfault with old kernels.

The reproducible builds project use "linux64 --uname-2.6" to set a
different kernel version for the second build to find bugs in packages
that build differently depending on the running kernel version, and it
would be nice if this would continue to work.


live well,
  vagrant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2016-01-06 17:29, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,
> 
> On Donnerstag, 24. Dezember 2015, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Yes, it's exactly that. The glibc was configured with a minimum kernel
> > set to 3.2. This allows to use the new features provided by the kernel
> > without any compatibility code to emulate them. For that the libc first
> > looks at runtime that the kernel is indeed at least 3.2. This is where
> > it fails when using the uname26 personality, as with the default
> > comparison method, 2.6.40 < 3.2.
> [...]
> > The check for at least a 3.2 kernel is something done at runtime in
> > ld.so, hence the "FATAL: kernel too old" message you reported.
> 
> Ah, now I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain!
> 
> However, I've come to the conclusion to stop using this on 
> reproducible.debian.net, as we are currently already testing on amd64 and 
> armhf, and we expect more archs soon, and as --linux-2.6 now only works on x86 
> we would need to special case this, while at the same time making sure to vary 
> kernels everywhere anyway, so it's just easier to stop using this.
> 
> Thanks for also making me understand that! :)

The problem is not reproducible starting with glibc 2.26-1, on that
version, ldconfig exit with an abort instead of a segmentation fault.

I am therefore closing the bug.

Regards
Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: