Re: [openssl.org #3075] [PATCH] Fix ASM support for FreeBSD 10
For FreeBSD 10 we have changed /usr/lib/libc.so to be a text linker script and no longer a symlink. This breaks the config check on i386 for what binary format to use when building with ASM support. The current config check expects /usr/lib/libc.so to symlink to a /usr/lib/libc.so.X file to run file(1) against. For FreeBSD the real libc.so is in /lib/libc.so.X. Because the proper libc.so is not found, a.out format is chosen when using ASM and the build fails. With patch: Operating system: i386-pc-freebsd8.3 Configuring for BSD-x86-elf [...] Build passes. I have 2 proposed patches which solve the problem. Only 1 is needed. 1. Use file(1) against /bin/sh for all BSD platforms. I believe this will be more portable long-term. It will determine the binary type, regardless of where libc.so is or how it is setup. Note that -L is used to follow symlink incase someone symlinks /bin/sh to something else. http://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/openssl-ldscript-elf-bin-sh.diff 2. Or just include /lib/libc.so.* in the search path to run file(1) against. I prefer #1 as it is possible that /usr/lib/libc.so is symlinked to a libc.ld script, which cause file(1) to return 'ASCII' and the config falls back on a.out. http://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/openssl-ldscript-elf-lib-libc.diff We have to remember that those lines serve several BSD flavours and preferred choice should be least invasive, Applied. Thanks for report. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: [openssl.org #3075] [PATCH] Fix ASM support for FreeBSD 10
For FreeBSD 10 we have changed /usr/lib/libc.so to be a text linker script and no longer a symlink. This breaks the config check on i386 for what binary format to use when building with ASM support. The current config check expects /usr/lib/libc.so to symlink to a /usr/lib/libc.so.X file to run file(1) against. For FreeBSD the real libc.so is in /lib/libc.so.X. Because the proper libc.so is not found, a.out format is chosen when using ASM and the build fails. With patch: Operating system: i386-pc-freebsd8.3 Configuring for BSD-x86-elf [...] Build passes. I have 2 proposed patches which solve the problem. Only 1 is needed. 1. Use file(1) against /bin/sh for all BSD platforms. I believe this will be more portable long-term. It will determine the binary type, regardless of where libc.so is or how it is setup. Note that -L is used to follow symlink incase someone symlinks /bin/sh to something else. http://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/openssl-ldscript-elf-bin-sh.diff 2. Or just include /lib/libc.so.* in the search path to run file(1) against. I prefer #1 as it is possible that /usr/lib/libc.so is symlinked to a libc.ld script, which cause file(1) to return 'ASCII' and the config falls back on a.out. http://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/openssl-ldscript-elf-lib-libc.diff We have to remember that those lines serve several BSD flavours and preferred choice should be least invasive, i.e. #2. But before we proceed could you answer couple of questions? Is it possible to run 32-bit x86 binaries on x86_64 FreeBSD system? Compile 32-bit program? How multi-lib is handled, i.e. where are 32- and 64-bit shared libraries reside? Well, this is unlikely to affect the decision, I'm simply using the opportunity to learn something that can affect future decisions. Thanks. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Re: [openssl.org #3075] [PATCH] Fix ASM support for FreeBSD 10
On 6/18/2013 4:47 AM, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote: For FreeBSD 10 we have changed /usr/lib/libc.so to be a text linker script and no longer a symlink. This breaks the config check on i386 for what binary format to use when building with ASM support. The current config check expects /usr/lib/libc.so to symlink to a /usr/lib/libc.so.X file to run file(1) against. For FreeBSD the real libc.so is in /lib/libc.so.X. Because the proper libc.so is not found, a.out format is chosen when using ASM and the build fails. With patch: Operating system: i386-pc-freebsd8.3 Configuring for BSD-x86-elf [...] Build passes. I have 2 proposed patches which solve the problem. Only 1 is needed. 1. Use file(1) against /bin/sh for all BSD platforms. I believe this will be more portable long-term. It will determine the binary type, regardless of where libc.so is or how it is setup. Note that -L is used to follow symlink incase someone symlinks /bin/sh to something else. http://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/openssl-ldscript-elf-bin-sh.diff 2. Or just include /lib/libc.so.* in the search path to run file(1) against. I prefer #1 as it is possible that /usr/lib/libc.so is symlinked to a libc.ld script, which cause file(1) to return 'ASCII' and the config falls back on a.out. http://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/openssl-ldscript-elf-lib-libc.diff We have to remember that those lines serve several BSD flavours and preferred choice should be least invasive, Right. The entire script is running through /bin/sh, so it is guaranteed to be there. I really have no preference on which, if either, is taken. i.e. #2. But before we proceed could you answer couple of questions? Is it possible to run 32-bit x86 binaries on x86_64 FreeBSD system? Yes Compile 32-bit program? Yes How multi-lib is handled, i.e. where are 32- and 64-bit shared libraries reside? Well, this is unlikely to affect the decision, I'm simply using the opportunity to learn something that can affect future decisions. Thanks. We have 32bit compat libraries in /usr/lib32 on 64bit hosts. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [openssl.org #3075] [PATCH] Fix ASM support for FreeBSD 10
On 6/18/2013 4:47 AM, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote: For FreeBSD 10 we have changed /usr/lib/libc.so to be a text linker script and no longer a symlink. This breaks the config check on i386 for what binary format to use when building with ASM support. The current config check expects /usr/lib/libc.so to symlink to a /usr/lib/libc.so.X file to run file(1) against. For FreeBSD the real libc.so is in /lib/libc.so.X. Because the proper libc.so is not found, a.out format is chosen when using ASM and the build fails. With patch: Operating system: i386-pc-freebsd8.3 Configuring for BSD-x86-elf [...] Build passes. I have 2 proposed patches which solve the problem. Only 1 is needed. 1. Use file(1) against /bin/sh for all BSD platforms. I believe this will be more portable long-term. It will determine the binary type, regardless of where libc.so is or how it is setup. Note that -L is used to follow symlink incase someone symlinks /bin/sh to something else. http://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/openssl-ldscript-elf-bin-sh.diff 2. Or just include /lib/libc.so.* in the search path to run file(1) against. I prefer #1 as it is possible that /usr/lib/libc.so is symlinked to a libc.ld script, which cause file(1) to return 'ASCII' and the config falls back on a.out. http://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/openssl-ldscript-elf-lib-libc.diff We have to remember that those lines serve several BSD flavours and preferred choice should be least invasive, Right. The entire script is running through /bin/sh, so it is guaranteed to be there. I really have no preference on which, if either, is taken. i.e. #2. But before we proceed could you answer couple of questions? Is it possible to run 32-bit x86 binaries on x86_64 FreeBSD system? Yes Compile 32-bit program? Yes How multi-lib is handled, i.e. where are 32- and 64-bit shared libraries reside? Well, this is unlikely to affect the decision, I'm simply using the opportunity to learn something that can affect future decisions. Thanks. We have 32bit compat libraries in /usr/lib32 on 64bit hosts. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: PGP signature
