Re: Using time() leads to binary incompatibility of static executables
Peter Keller:
> Dear all,
>
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your interest and for testing the issue.
> We have come across a binary compatibility problem involving
> Debian-testing: an executable built from the trivial test program at
> the end of this message segfaults on Debian-testing in the call to the
> time() function, when the executable was built on a CentOS 6 or CentOS
> 5 system. We have tested this (both compiling and running) on a
> variety of other distributions, and we have found that the following
> conditions must all be satisfied to trigger the segfault:
>
> * compilation/linking (with 'gcc -g --static test_time.c'):
> - on CentOS 5 or CentOS 6
> - the executable must be static
> - the executable must be 64-bit
> * running
> - must be run on Debian-testing (kernel 4.11)
>
We very recently got a kernel 4.12.2 in Debian testing:
* Could you test if that fixes the problem?
* FYI, there was a glibc migration today. So both has been updated
recently.
If not, let us move on to filing an actual bug.
> [...]
>
> We would be grateful for any comments from someone with more expertise
> than us in this area. In particular:
>
> * have we found a bug in Debian-testing, or is binary compatibility
> not to be expected under these circumstances?
>
I suspect you have found a bug, but I am not entirely sure. At first
glance, I believe it should work/be compatible. However, I would prefer
to let people, who understand the technical aspect of the problem,
answer this part if it has not been fixed by the recent changes. :)
> * if it is a bug, which package should we report it under? (glibc?
> linux? some other package?)
>
Good question. When you tested in debian testing with linux 4.9 and
linux 4.11, was the only different the kernel? If so, I would go for
the linux kernel.
If you want/need to retest it, please remember that we have the
snapshot.debian.org service, which can provide you with versions of the
archive as they looked on a given day.
> * have upcoming changes in unstable or experimental already
> addressed this issue?
>
Not that I know of, but I have not tried. To be honest, I think you
might be a better judge of that if you are willing to test unstable. :)
Anyway, if the recent updates have not fixed the issue, please let us
look into filing a bug. :)
Hope it was helpful. :)
Thanks,
Niels
Reply to: