Hi Lars, Uninstalling libsseccomp-devel did the trick.
I obviously need to sort out a more minimal build environment. Thanks, Loris Lars Viklund <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > That recipe builds fine in my somewhat minimal Centos 7.9 container. > Looking at the build log, mine has a largely no-op seccomp.c as the system > doesn't have libseccomp(-devel) installed. > > I can reproduce the failure if I go and pollute my container with > libsseccomp-devel. > > When the build detects seccomp on the system, it builds that source file and > as it assumes the existence of syscalls that the ancient kernel headers on > 7.9 doesn't have, it breaks. > > Maybe consider either removing the development headers for libseccomp or > patch out the ineligible lines. > > // Lars Viklund, HPC2N > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of Loris Bennett <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 11:49 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [easybuild] file-5.43-GCCcore-11.3.0.eb failure: __NR_statx > undeclared > > Åke Sandgren <[email protected]> writes: > >> Which OS is this? > > CentOS 7.9 > >> I see no problems on Ubuntu 20.04 or 22.04 >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on >> behalf of Loris Bennett <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 8:24 >> To: easybuild >> Subject: [easybuild] file-5.43-GCCcore-11.3.0.eb failure: __NR_statx >> undeclared >> >> Hi, >> >> The following >> >> eb file-5.43-GCCcore-11.3.0.eb >> >> fails with >> >> In file included from seccomp.c:34: >> seccomp.c: In function enable_sandbox_full: >> seccomp.c:50:52: error: __NR_statx undeclared (first use in this >> function); did you mean __lxstat? >> 50 | if (seccomp_rule_add (ctx, SCMP_ACT_ALLOW, SCMP_SYS(call), >> 0) == -1) \ >> | ^~~~~~~~ >> seccomp.c:230:9: note: in expansion of macro ALLOW_RULE >> 230 | ALLOW_RULE(statx); >> | ^~~~~~~~~~ >> seccomp.c:50:52: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once >> for each function it appears in >> 50 | if (seccomp_rule_add (ctx, SCMP_ACT_ALLOW, SCMP_SYS(call), >> 0) == -1) \ >> | ^~~~~~~~ >> seccomp.c:230:9: note: in expansion of macro ALLOW_RULE >> 230 | ALLOW_RULE(statx); >> | ^~~~~~~~~~ >> make[3]: *** [seccomp.o] Error 1 >> >> Any ideas what might be going wrong? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Loris >> >> -- >> Dr. Loris Bennett (Herr/Mr) >> ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin -- Dr. Loris Bennett (Herr/Mr) ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin
