On 15/12/2015 14:40, Douglas R. Reno wrote:
On Dec 15, 2015 7:35 AM, "Pierre Labastie" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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...
>
> Pierre
It should be that /bin/bash, not /bin/dash is the active shell.
Sorry if it was not clear: /bin/sh should be a symbolic link to
/bin/bash, not /bin/dash. If you use a debian-like system, the default
is to point to /bin/dash, and that causes issues (I am not able to find
a thread ATM).
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
