On 15/12/2015 11:38, Read, James C wrote:
Here is my env:
TERM=xterm-256color
OLDPWD=/mnt/lfs/sources
LC_ALL=POSIX
LFS=/mnt/lfs
PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
PWD=/mnt/lfs/sources/perl-5.22.0
LFS_TGT=x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu
PS1=${debian_chroot:+($debian_chroot)}\u@\h:\w\$
SHLVL=1
HOME=/home/lfs
_=/tools/bin/env
I just noticed. All the infected binaries have the prefix x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu
which is exactly the value of $LFS_TGT in my env.
What's the connection?
Normally, all binaries built during binutils-pass1 and gcc-pass1 should
link to the host libraries, so I guess there is nothing wrong here.
Those binaries have the prefix x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu- and are hard-linked
to the same names without the prefix. They are rebuilt during
binutils-pass2 and gcc-pass2, but with the x86_64-unbknown-linux-gnu-
prefix. They are also hard linked to the same names without the prefix,
so that the previous non-prefixed files are overwritten. So I guess
there is nothing wrong with the binaries. What is wrong is with the
libraries, like libanl, which are part of glibc (and others, which are
built later). So I guess something went wrong during glibc build.
One possibility is that '/bin/dash' is used instead of '/bin/bash'. Have
you checked the link /bin/sh->/bin/bash?
Another possibility is a typo in the configure line, or that $LFS_TGT
was wrongly set at that point, or...
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
