Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 18:50:01 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: riscv@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 291446] /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 not branded properly on riscv, breaks manual activation via ldd Message-ID: <bug-291446-40250-6N6BQWGgXg@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-291446-40250@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-291446-40250@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=291446 --- Comment #16 from Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@freebsd.org> --- For amd64 and arm64 it *shouldn't* matter, because they set EI_OSABI to ELFOSABI_FREEBSD, not ELFOSABI_NONE, so that's sufficient branding for the kernel to deem it a FreeBSD binary. Plus p_osrel being wrong probably doesn't matter (see the commit message), unless rtld-elf is doing something very early on where the differing semantics matter, which I'm not aware of. But that doesn't mean there isn't something subtly wrong going on... My bigger concern would be for other executables, whether old (I don't know whether we've ever produced binaries where the ABI tag note is last, perhaps because it was the only one in ancient versions) or produced by third-party toolchains (e.g. Go does its own thing). I could see there being a risk there that we're picking up the wrong p_osrel when running those binaries (not using rtld direct-exec mode). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-291446-40250-6N6BQWGgXg>