Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:50:58AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > Although, if we wanted to get really crazy, we could say this is a bug in > the spec of ld. But if we go there, we have to acknowledge that the spec of > ld matches the general C/*nix run-time spec, so the bug is in ... (chasing > our semantic tail a bit) ... certain implementation-dependent, but de-facto > spec, low-level elements of the C run-time which make it hard to return > non-scalar error messages from low-level tools. > > (I know that sounds like a string of buzz-words, but making it any simpler > just ends up as a pejorative reference to the 8086's lack of extra address > registers. :-\ ) Indeed. I think my brain just broke. Let's just say the bug report should be against Tom Roche's workplace's network security bods :) Cheers, Tom -- I've got a COUSIN who works in the GARMENT DISTRICT ... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Tom Furie wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 06:44:30AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > > > Well, okay, we need to start somewhere, and, while we suspect ld, we > don't > > really know for sure. And we suspect that the actual fix may not end up > > being in ld. > > > > So, what is the name of the package that is trying to load libc6:i386? > That > > probably isn't where the bug is, but it seems to be the cause of the bug. > > Well, in this case, Firefox was looking to link in some 32-bit > libraries, but those libraries weren't installed, not even a 32-bit > linker. > > The problem was required libraries not being installed, the symptom was > a generic "file not found" error which led to all the confusion at the > start of the thread. > > The reason the libraries weren't installed was that Firefox was > installed from some external source without the user ensuring the > relevant libraries were available to the application. Debian can't be > held accountable for that. > > If the 32-bit Firefox had been able to talk to the 64-bit linker (I'm > not sure that's even possible), then it would be up to the linker to > return a more meaningful error than "file not found", at least tell us > which library or which function was being requested, and so a bug could > be reported against libc6 either generically or :amd64 (to be passed > upstream). > > Otherwise there is no bug to be reported against Debian. I'm at best > vague on what happens if an application can't find a linker to pull in > requested libraries. Should the bug be reported against Firefox? It's an > old version, are more recent versions more precise in their error > messages in this kind of situation? > > Cheers, > Tom > Precisely. Although, if we wanted to get really crazy, we could say this is a bug in the spec of ld. But if we go there, we have to acknowledge that the spec of ld matches the general C/*nix run-time spec, so the bug is in ... (chasing our semantic tail a bit) ... certain implementation-dependent, but de-facto spec, low-level elements of the C run-time which make it hard to return non-scalar error messages from low-level tools. (I know that sounds like a string of buzz-words, but making it any simpler just ends up as a pejorative reference to the 8086's lack of extra address registers. :-\ ) -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart.
Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 06:44:30AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > Well, okay, we need to start somewhere, and, while we suspect ld, we don't > really know for sure. And we suspect that the actual fix may not end up > being in ld. > > So, what is the name of the package that is trying to load libc6:i386? That > probably isn't where the bug is, but it seems to be the cause of the bug. Well, in this case, Firefox was looking to link in some 32-bit libraries, but those libraries weren't installed, not even a 32-bit linker. The problem was required libraries not being installed, the symptom was a generic "file not found" error which led to all the confusion at the start of the thread. The reason the libraries weren't installed was that Firefox was installed from some external source without the user ensuring the relevant libraries were available to the application. Debian can't be held accountable for that. If the 32-bit Firefox had been able to talk to the 64-bit linker (I'm not sure that's even possible), then it would be up to the linker to return a more meaningful error than "file not found", at least tell us which library or which function was being requested, and so a bug could be reported against libc6 either generically or :amd64 (to be passed upstream). Otherwise there is no bug to be reported against Debian. I'm at best vague on what happens if an application can't find a linker to pull in requested libraries. Should the bug be reported against Firefox? It's an old version, are more recent versions more precise in their error messages in this kind of situation? Cheers, Tom -- Should I start with the time I SWITCHED personalities with a BEATNIK hair stylist or my failure to refer five TEENAGERS to a good OCULIST? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Tom Furie wrote: > >> On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:03:17PM -0400, Tom H wrote: >> >> > But installing libc6:i386 and a few others allows firefox to work: >> >> Meaning installing the :i386 versions of the libraries was (part of) the >> solution, not the problem. Any bug report would have to go against a >> part of the system that was part of the problem (not withstanding that >> firefox was installed in a non-standard location and from a non-standard >> repository). The only real candidates, given that the problem was mainly >> regarding an insufficient error message about missing libraries, are ld >> or the kernel. Anything further up than the linker in this scenario can >> only say "something went wrong, but I don't know what" unless they >> themselves are given more detailed information. >> > > Well, okay, we need to start somewhere, and, while we suspect ld, we don't > really know for sure. And we suspect that the actual fix may not end up > being in ld. > > So, what is the name of the package that is trying to load libc6:i386? > That probably isn't where the bug is, but it seems to be the cause of the > bug. > Well, I mean, it seems to be what exposes the bug. -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart.
Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Tom Furie wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:03:17PM -0400, Tom H wrote: > > > But installing libc6:i386 and a few others allows firefox to work: > > Meaning installing the :i386 versions of the libraries was (part of) the > solution, not the problem. Any bug report would have to go against a > part of the system that was part of the problem (not withstanding that > firefox was installed in a non-standard location and from a non-standard > repository). The only real candidates, given that the problem was mainly > regarding an insufficient error message about missing libraries, are ld > or the kernel. Anything further up than the linker in this scenario can > only say "something went wrong, but I don't know what" unless they > themselves are given more detailed information. > Well, okay, we need to start somewhere, and, while we suspect ld, we don't really know for sure. And we suspect that the actual fix may not end up being in ld. So, what is the name of the package that is trying to load libc6:i386? That probably isn't where the bug is, but it seems to be the cause of the bug. -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart.
Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:03:17PM -0400, Tom H wrote: > But installing libc6:i386 and a few others allows firefox to work: Meaning installing the :i386 versions of the libraries was (part of) the solution, not the problem. Any bug report would have to go against a part of the system that was part of the problem (not withstanding that firefox was installed in a non-standard location and from a non-standard repository). The only real candidates, given that the problem was mainly regarding an insufficient error message about missing libraries, are ld or the kernel. Anything further up than the linker in this scenario can only say "something went wrong, but I don't know what" unless they themselves are given more detailed information. Cheers, Tom -- A man who keeps stealing mopeds is an obvious cycle-path. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Tom Furie wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 06:23:05PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Tom Roche wrote: >>> >>> summary: solution: install jessie package=libc6:i386 et al >>> >> >> Well, you've actually pinned the problem pretty well. Who, or, rather, >> which tool should be responsible for grabbing the global error string at >> that point? My first guess would be ld, but I'm not sure that would be the >> place to start the bug report. Maybe ia32-libs or even libc6:i386. > > I don't think your suggestions of ia32-libs or libc6:i386 are good. > There is no ia32-libs in wheezy+ and libc6:i386 wasn't installed at the > time of the error so can't be responsible. The bug would have to be > reported against a package in the execution chain that was at least > installed. But installing libc6:i386 and a few others allows firefox to work: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/05/msg00185.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=szjv5rcpubk6ch4vhjc4zxlynr1fcf_l5y5ypckrw0...@mail.gmail.com
Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 06:23:05PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Tom Roche wrote: > > > > > summary: solution: install jessie package=libc6:i386 et al > > > > Well, you've actually pinned the problem pretty well. Who, or, rather, > which tool should be responsible for grabbing the global error string at > that point? My first guess would be ld, but I'm not sure that would be the > place to start the bug report. Maybe ia32-libs or even libc6:i386. I don't think your suggestions of ia32-libs or libc6:i386 are good. There is no ia32-libs in wheezy+ and libc6:i386 wasn't installed at the time of the error so can't be responsible. The bug would have to be reported against a package in the execution chain that was at least installed. Cheers, Tom -- If you look good and dress well, you don't need a purpose in life. -- Robert Pante, fashion consultant signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: solved: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Tom Roche wrote: > > summary: solution: install jessie package=libc6:i386 et al > Well, my understanding is that it's likely a temporary solution. And not a recommended one. (Think carefully about the about the recent fuss about the openssl vulnerability.) You need to get after your IT support staff at your workplace. Trying to run secure traffic through FF3 or FF8 is irresponsible. I am not talking about problems with FF3 or FF8 picking up malware, which you'll think you can avoid because you'll only ever be going to your company's servers with this claptrap. I'm talking about the data can be observed, analysed, and quite possibly decrypted by a persistent attacker. > details: > > *[...]* > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/05/msg00129.html [Mike Kupfer > Fri, 02 May 2014 21:02:48 -0700] > The error message from bash is... unfortunate, to say the least. > > I'd like to bug-report, except > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/05/msg00146.html [Sven Joachim > Sat, 03 May 2014 07:38:28 +0200] > >>> [bash] can't do any better though, because the kernel just reports > ENOENT > >>> when you try to run a program and its ELF interpreter [is] missing. > > I'm the first to admit that I am, as a software developer, probably > several orders of magnitude less than the linux kernel folks. That being > said, in all my code I try to provide error messages that at best help the > user actually solve the problem, and at least do not misrepresent the > etiology. So if anyone has suggestions regarding how/where to put a bug > that might result in a positive outcome, please lemme know. > > thanks all! Tom Roche Well, you've actually pinned the problem pretty well. Who, or, rather, which tool should be responsible for grabbing the global error string at that point? My first guess would be ld, but I'm not sure that would be the place to start the bug report. Maybe ia32-libs or even libc6:i386. -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart.
