Hi,
Just to let you know that with today's libc6.1 2.13-26 updates in
Debian Testing, the problem is fixed. Well, for a complete workaround,
you also need:
- linux-image-3.2.0-mckinley 3.2.1-1 (not yet in Testing) or above
- locally rebuild udev 175 as a newer version (or a binNMU against
libc6.1
Your message dated Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:52:49 +0100
with message-id <20120208115249.gl30...@hall.aurel32.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#658278: ld.so segfaults on wrong input
has caused the Debian Bug report #658278,
regarding ld.so segfaults on wrong input
to be marked as done.
This means that you c
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 658278 wishlist
Bug #658278 [libc6] ld.so segfaults on wrong input
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal'
> tags 658278 + moreinfo
Bug #658278 [libc6] ld.so segfaults on wrong input
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> quit
Stopping processing her
severity 658278 wishlist
tags 658278 + moreinfo
quit
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> It has a different interpreter in its elf section. Ld.so could check
> that to determine wether the elf file is one it should care about.
A common use case is testing updated versions of ld.so by running
binaries
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reopen 658278
Bug #658278 {Done: Aurelien Jarno } [libc6] ld.so
segfaults on wrong input
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
658278: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658278
Debian Bug
reopen 658278
thanks
Aurelien Jarno writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 07:47:29PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Package: libc6
>> Version: 2.13-21
>> Severity: normal
>> File: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
>>
>> Running ld.so with the wrong kind of file segfaults:
>>
>> mrvn@frosties:~% /
Your message dated Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:00:44 +0100
with message-id <20120208100044.ga9...@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#659064: full story
has caused the Debian Bug report #659064,
regarding libc6 - Includes file in /lib64
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:42:01AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Okay, here the whole story as I understand it.
>
> The OP bootstrapped a Squeeze system. This includes the
> ./lib64 -> /lib symlink.
>
> After that, the OP bootstrapped a Wheezy system over the existing
> Squeeze root. This include
Okay, here the whole story as I understand it.
The OP bootstrapped a Squeeze system. This includes the
./lib64 -> /lib symlink.
After that, the OP bootstrapped a Wheezy system over the existing
Squeeze root. This includes the dir ./lib64 and the symlink
./lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 in the tar fil
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:14:34AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 12:09:31AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 12:05:20AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 11:36:09PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > And I don't see the
Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 12:09:31AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 12:05:20AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>> It exists in the filesystem as relict from the old package.
>>
>> We have a preinst script making sure it is replaced from a symlink to a
>>
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 12:09:31AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 12:05:20AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 11:36:09PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > And I don't see the relation with #514015, given the /lib64 -> /lib
> > > has disappeared.
12 matches
Mail list logo
