Dear all,
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 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?
* if it is a bug, which package should we report it under? (glibc?
linux? some other package?)
* have upcoming changes in unstable or experimental already
addressed this issue?
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. :)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 379 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 39:29:14 |
Calls: | 8,141 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 13,085 |
Messages: | 5,857,558 |