On Dec 15, 2015 7:35 AM, "Pierre Labastie" <pierre.labas...@neuf.fr> wrote:
>
> 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...
>
> PierreIt should be that /bin/bash, not /bin/dash is the active shell.
-- 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
