Summary: | sys-libs/glibc: running `ldd` on splitdebug files triggers a Segmentation fault in _dl_relocate_object | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Thomas Deutschmann (RETIRED) <whissi> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Toolchain Maintainers <toolchain> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
See Also: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583724 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Thomas Deutschmann (RETIRED)
2016-12-03 20:00:27 UTC
running ld-linux directly on splitdebug files is expected to crash. that's simply WAI -- there's no real code in there to execute. however, ldd shouldn't have tried in the first place because the files are supposed to not be +x. revdep-rebuild also should have ignored splitdebug files since tracking their deps makes no sense. so let's back up: (1) are those files installed +x ? what if you delete them by hand and re-emerge them ? pick a small program rather than having to rebuild glibc all the time. (2) if they aren't +x, then we can bounce this over to revdep-rebuild. (In reply to SpanKY from comment #1) > so let's back up: > (1) are those files installed +x ? what if you delete them by hand and > re-emerge them ? pick a small program rather than having to rebuild glibc > all the time. I re-emerged app-admin/rsyslog. No, no +x ...and revdep-rebuild.sh logs that (via ldd), from "/var/cache/revdep-rebuild/3_errors.rr": > ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib64/debug/usr/lib64/rsyslog/imuxsock.so.debug' > [...] # stat /usr/lib64/debug/usr/lib64/rsyslog/imuxsock.so.debug File: /usr/lib64/debug/usr/lib64/rsyslog/imuxsock.so.debug Size: 54336 Blocks: 112 IO Block: 4096 regular file Device: fe02h/65026d Inode: 183892 Links: 1 Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root) Access: 2016-12-06 04:08:31.613820443 +0100 Modify: 2016-12-06 02:59:25.144287589 +0100 Change: 2016-12-06 02:59:27.183310257 +0100 Birth: - > (2) if they aren't +x, then we can bounce this over to revdep-rebuild. Please proceed. looks like we already have such a bug report open :( *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 364689 *** |