* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-01-19 11:47 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-12 12:52 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-01-19 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #1 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
PS It has previously worked for about a decade without any plt/got sections.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-01-19 11:47 ` [Bug dynamic-link/30020] " petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-12 12:52 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-13 14:23 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-12 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #2 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
Is there anything else I can/should do to get this looked at?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-01-19 11:47 ` [Bug dynamic-link/30020] " petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-12 12:52 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-13 14:23 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-02-13 19:30 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2023-02-13 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot o
| |rg
--- Comment #3 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
With glibc master I see:
$ ./testrun.sh ./p64
Phix hybrid interpreter/compiler.
Version 1.0.1 (64 bit Linux) Copyright Pete Lomax 2006..2016
Enter ? for options or filename to execute:
Is it the expected output?
However, running through execve the kernel shows the binary can not be loaded:
kernel: Code: ff ff 00 45 31 db 48 8d 15 c9 ac 00 00 4c 8d 05 46 8f 01 00 4c 8d
2d 1f 8f 01 00 49 89 c2 48 8d 58 ff 48 89 f8 49>
kernel: p64[54765]: segfault at 0 ip 00007fc7ce59c350 sp 00007fffd17839c0 error
4 in ld-linux-x86-64.so.2[7fc7ce57c000+2a000]
So I am not sure it is really a glibc error, the binary is also stripped and
not fully conformant (readelf -a show a lot of bogus information), so it is
really difficult to debug. I think what might be happening is kernel ELF
binfmt is seeing some unexpected and thus throwing the error.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-13 14:23 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
@ 2023-02-13 19:30 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-15 17:45 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-13 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #4 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
Thank you, that is a massive step in the right direction, I think.
Yes, that is what success should look like. I had (and meant it):
Size of section headers: 64 (bytes)
Number of section headers: 0 (64)
Previous versions of readelf (I just checked, 3.5.0-54-generic) did not
mistreat that 0 as 64.
Anyway, I patched that e_shentsize to 0 which got readelf down to 2 complaints
(vs 0 previously):
readelf: Error: Size (0xb0) of section <no-strings> is not a multiple of its
sh_entsize (0x10)
readelf: Error: Corrupt DT_SYMTAB dynamic entry
I've also got:
LOAD 0x0000000000000228 0x0000000000400228 0x0000000000400228
and patching away that 40 made readelf happier, but spannered
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 ./p64
So, while that was probably wrong, it made readelf show the 10 dynamic section
entries it used to,
along with an 11th (NULL) which it never did before, and (also new) followed by
ten times:
0000004004b0 000100000001 R_X86_64_64 readelf: Error: bad symbol index:
00000001 in reloc
PS: There really are no section headers, and there never was any debug info to
be stripped.
These headers all worked perfectly for years before August 2022.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-13 19:30 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-15 17:45 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-15 17:51 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-15 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #5 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
To quickly reiterate, I believe that "0 now means 64" must be a big clue.
Either it should not be doing that, or those changes should be documented
somewhere.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-15 17:45 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-15 17:51 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-02-15 18:38 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2023-02-15 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #6 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
In any case, is this really a glibc bug? As I said I think the issue is a ill
formatted ELF file that is preventing the kernel binfmt loader to start the
process.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-15 17:51 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
@ 2023-02-15 18:38 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-15 19:57 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-15 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #7 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
If not glibc, what should this bug be classified as?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-15 18:38 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-15 19:57 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-02-16 11:36 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2023-02-15 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #8 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
(In reply to Pete Lomax from comment #7)
> If not glibc, what should this bug be classified as?
It is what I tried to show on comment #3, where I see that the *kernel* is
throwing the following error:
Feb 15 19:48:58 ubuntu22-vm kernel: Code: ff ff 00 45 31 db 48 8d 15 c9 ac 00
00 4c 8d 05 46 8f 01 00 4c 8d 2d 1f 8f 01 00 49 89 c2 48 8d 58 ff 48 89 f8 49
f7 da 66 90 <8b> 08 83 f9 07 77 19 85 c9 74 45 83 f9 07 77 40 48 63 0c 8a 48 01
Feb 15 19:48:58 ubuntu22-vm kernel: p64[1403]: segfault at 0 ip
00007ff10dcb7350 sp 00007ffd5a54b570 error 4 in
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2[7ff10dc97000+2a000]
This means the resulting image can not execute the entry point after the kernel
loads both dynamic loader and the binary for some reason. You can check that
even with gdb, I can even start to execute the first instruction (starti).
I think you will need to check why binfmt loading code in kernel is doing
differently; or, most likely, fix the bogus binary.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-15 19:57 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
@ 2023-02-16 11:36 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-16 11:59 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-16 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #9 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
Therein lies the nub. I would love to "fix the bogus binary", but have no idea
what that segfault actually means, "for some reason" just isn't quite enough.
I have already patched the binary to appease readelf, as best I can, but it
does not fix the problem, and further also fubars the running of it ld-linux
first (and the fact that way still works proves at least to me there is nothing
fundamentally wrong with that binary anyway).
What I an really here for is to find out what precisely changed in August 2022
and what precisely can I do about it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-16 11:36 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-16 11:59 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-02-16 22:03 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2023-02-16 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #10 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
(In reply to Pete Lomax from comment #9)
> Therein lies the nub. I would love to "fix the bogus binary", but have no
> idea what that segfault actually means, "for some reason" just isn't quite
> enough.
>
> I have already patched the binary to appease readelf, as best I can, but it
> does not fix the problem, and further also fubars the running of it ld-linux
> first (and the fact that way still works proves at least to me there is
> nothing fundamentally wrong with that binary anyway).
>
> What I an really here for is to find out what precisely changed in August
> 2022 and what precisely can I do about it.
You can try bisect by rebuilding your binary with -Wl,-dynamic-linker= (similar
to what --enable-hardcoded-path-in-tests) so you don't mess with your system.
It is quite time-consuming to debug it because patchelf does not work this
binary (and hexedtting is quite tedious), if you could provide a source code on
how to reproduce it would be immensely better.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-16 11:59 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
@ 2023-02-16 22:03 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-16 22:33 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-16 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #11 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
I might struggle to bisect the ZERO changes I made this end, I rather presumed
someone on your end would figure out which kernel build (circa August 2022)
this suddenly went wrong on and examine the source code changes that went in
since it worked on the previous day's build.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-16 22:03 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-16 22:33 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-16 22:52 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-16 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #12 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
Here's a 32 bit nasm example that works fine on 3.2.0-126-generic-pae but
segfaults on 5.15.0-58-generic. I have narrowed it down to the PT_LOAD 3 or 4,
if you put 4 of 4 back in it'll work again, I'll continue playing with that to
see whether I can get what I need out of it (and make me a 64-bit version).
; tiny.asm
BITS 32
%define ET_EXEC 2
%define EM_386 3
%define EV_CURRENT 1
%define PT_LOAD 1
%define PT_DYNAMIC 2
%define PT_INTERP 3
%define PF_X 1
%define PF_W 2
%define PF_R 4
%define STT_FUNC 2
%define STB_GLOBAL 1
%define R_386_PC32 2
%define DT_NULL 0
%define DT_NEEDED 1
%define DT_HASH 4
%define DT_STRTAB 5
%define DT_SYMTAB 6
%define DT_STRSZ 10
%define DT_SYMENT 11
%define DT_REL 17
%define DT_RELSZ 18
%define DT_RELENT 19
%define ST_INFO(b, t) (((b) << 4) | (t))
%define R_INFO(s, t) (((s) << 8) | (t))
phentsz equ 0x20
; shentsz equ 0x28
shentsz equ 0x0
org 0x08048000
;; The ELF header
ehdr: ; Elf32_Ehdr
db 0x7F, "ELF", 1, 1, 1 ; e_ident
times 9 db 0
dw ET_EXEC ; e_type
dw EM_386 ; e_machine
dd EV_CURRENT ; e_version
dd _start ; e_entry
dd phdr - $$ ; e_phoff
dd 0 ; e_shoff
dd 0 ; e_flags
dw ehdrsz ; e_ehsize
dw phentsz ; e_phentsize
dw 3 ; e_phnum
dw shentsz ; e_shentsize
dw 0 ; e_shnum
dw 0 ; e_shstrndx
ehdrsz equ $ - ehdr
;; The program segment header table
phdr: ; Elf32_Phdr
dd PT_INTERP ; p_type
dd interp - $$ ; p_offset
dd interp ; p_vaddr
dd interp ; p_paddr
dd interpsz ; p_filesz
dd interpsz ; p_memsz
dd PF_R ; p_flags
dd 0 ; p_align
; phentsz equ $ - phdr
dd PT_DYNAMIC ; p_type
dd dyntab - $$ ; p_offset
dd dyntab ; p_vaddr
dd dyntab ; p_paddr
dd dyntabsz ; p_filesz
dd dyntabsz ; p_memsz
dd PF_R | PF_W ; p_flags
dd 4 ; p_align
; dd PT_LOAD ; p_type
; dd symtab - $$ ; p_offset
; dd symtab ; p_vaddr
; dd symtab ; p_paddr
; dd symtabsz ; p_filesz
; dd symtabsz ; p_memsz
; dd PF_R | PF_W ; p_flags
; dd 4 ; p_align
;
; dd PT_LOAD ; p_type
; dd data - $$ ; p_offset
; dd data ; p_vaddr
; dd data ; p_paddr
; dd datasz ; p_filesz
; dd datasz ; p_memsz
; dd PF_R | PF_W ; p_flags
; dd 4 ; p_align
dd PT_LOAD ; p_type
dd code - $$ ; p_offset
dd code ; p_vaddr
dd code ; p_paddr
dd codesz ; p_filesz
dd codesz ; p_memsz
dd PF_R | PF_W | PF_X ; p_flags
dd 0x1000 ; p_align
; dd PT_LOAD ; p_type
; dd 0 ; p_offset
; dd $$ ; p_vaddr
; dd $$ ; p_paddr
; dd filesz ; p_filesz
; dd memsz ; p_memsz
; dd PF_R | PF_W | PF_X ; p_flags
; dd 0x1000 ; p_align
;; The interpreter segment
interp:
db '/lib/ld-linux.so.2', 0
interpsz equ $ - interp
db 0 ; pad/dword-align
;; The dynamic section
dyntab:
dd DT_STRTAB, strtab
dd DT_STRSZ, strtabsz
dd DT_SYMTAB, symtab
dd DT_SYMENT, symentsz
dd DT_REL, reltab
dd DT_RELSZ, reltabsz
dd DT_RELENT, relentsz
dd DT_HASH, hashtab
dd DT_NEEDED, libc_name
dd DT_NULL, 0
dyntabsz equ $ - dyntab
;; The symbol table
symtab: ; Elf32_Sym
dd 0 ; st_name
dd 0 ; st_value
dd 0 ; st_size
db 0 ; st_info
db 0 ; st_other
dw 0 ; st_shndx
symentsz equ $ - symtab
dd exit_name ; st_name
dd 0 ; st_value
dd 0 ; st_size
db ST_INFO(STB_GLOBAL, STT_FUNC) ; st_info
db 0 ; st_other
dw 0 ; st_shndx
;; The hash table
hashtab:
dd 1 ; no. of buckets
dd 2 ; no. of symbols
dd 1 ; the bucket: symbol #1
dd 0, 0 ; two links, both zero
;; The string table
strtab:
db 0
libc_name equ $ - strtab
db 'libc.so.6', 0
exit_name equ $ - strtab
db '_exit', 0
strtabsz equ $ - strtab
;; The relocation table
reltab: ; Elf32_Rel
dd exit_call ; r_offset
dd R_INFO(1, R_386_PC32) ; r_info
relentsz equ $ - reltab
reltabsz equ $ - reltab
symtabsz equ $ - symtab
;; Data section
data db 'Phix'
; exit dd 0
datasz equ $ - data
;; Our program
_start:
push byte 42
call exit_call
exit_call equ $ - 4
code equ _start
codesz equ $ - code
;; End of the file image.
filesz equ $ - $$
memsz equ filesz
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-16 22:33 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-16 22:52 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-17 12:14 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-16 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #13 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
PS this is what success would look like:
$ nasm -f bin -o tiny tiny.asm
$ chmod +x tiny
$ ./tiny ; echo $?
42
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-16 22:52 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-17 12:14 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-02-20 18:26 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2023-02-17 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #14 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
Trying to debug if this is a glibc issue, I am now even more convinced the
issue is on the binary itself. Testing with glibc 2.32 to 2.35 on a simple
sysroot still segfaults.
It also does work on older 4.4.0 kernel (ubuntu16).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-17 12:14 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
@ 2023-02-20 18:26 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-20 18:39 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-20 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #15 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
Got it! It seems simply that p_align is now more strictly applied (fair enough,
I guess). Many thanks, I've updated the binary at http://phix.x10.mx/p64 in
case you still need it.
There is one small matter remaining, readelf -a still displays these errors:
readelf: Error: Size (0xb0) of section <no-strings> is not a multiple of its
sh_entsize (0x10)
readelf: Error: Corrupt DT_SYMTAB dynamic entry
My best guess for that is it is comparing the number of entries in the Dynamic
Link Info with the number of entries in the Symbol Table, for reasons that
utterly escape me. It may also be "entries of 16 bytes per vs. entries of 24
bytes per", but I'm not sure.
It also says "There are no sections in this file." which is correct, so I
guessed it must be somehow faking a section, and indeed I can see that it is -
search readelf.c for "overkill".
I could live with this, but would rather know whether there is something I
could do better.
I've still got lots of work to do, but the original crisis is now officially
over, and of course words are somehow completely inadequate to express my
gratitude for all your help.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-20 18:26 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-20 18:39 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
2023-02-20 19:09 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-02-21 10:26 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: petelomax at ymail dot com @ 2023-02-20 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #16 from Pete Lomax <petelomax at ymail dot com> ---
I should have said those are clearly bogus errors: 0xb0 is a multiple of 0x10,
and the program now runs fine, which it certainly would not do were DT_SYMTAB
actually corrupt. Also I am pretty sure any tweaks needed would be fairly close
to that "overkill" comment, or the things it is calling.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-20 18:39 ` petelomax at ymail dot com
@ 2023-02-20 19:09 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2023-02-21 10:26 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2023-02-20 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
--- Comment #17 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
(In reply to Pete Lomax from comment #15)
> Got it! It seems simply that p_align is now more strictly applied (fair
> enough, I guess). Many thanks, I've updated the binary at
> http://phix.x10.mx/p64 in case you still need it.
>
> There is one small matter remaining, readelf -a still displays these errors:
>
> readelf: Error: Size (0xb0) of section <no-strings> is not a multiple of its
> sh_entsize (0x10)
> readelf: Error: Corrupt DT_SYMTAB dynamic entry
>
> My best guess for that is it is comparing the number of entries in the
> Dynamic Link Info with the number of entries in the Symbol Table, for
> reasons that utterly escape me. It may also be "entries of 16 bytes per vs.
> entries of 24 bytes per", but I'm not sure.
>
> It also says "There are no sections in this file." which is correct, so I
> guessed it must be somehow faking a section, and indeed I can see that it is
> - search readelf.c for "overkill".
> I could live with this, but would rather know whether there is something I
> could do better.
> I've still got lots of work to do, but the original crisis is now officially
> over, and of course words are somehow completely inadequate to express my
> gratitude for all your help.
So I take this is not a glibc issue in the end then. I will this bug as
NOTABUG then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug dynamic-link/30020] segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022
2023-01-18 12:46 [Bug dynamic-link/30020] New: segfault in ld-linux after aug 2022 petelomax at ymail dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-20 19:09 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
@ 2023-02-21 10:26 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: fweimer at redhat dot com @ 2023-02-21 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |security-
CC| |fweimer at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> ---
Closing as indicated.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread