Labels Milestones

New Issue

Damaged binaries when using binutils >= 2.34.90 (snapshot of 2.35.x) #4

Closed

opened 4 years ago by SlavekB · 2 comments

SlavekB commented 4 years ago

Owner

Basic information

• TDE version: R14.0.9~pre
• Distribution: Bullseye / SID
• Hardware: any

Description

Probably something has changed in the BFD functions in binutils, because attaching metadata using tdelfeditor causes damage to binaries and libraries with the current binutils 2.35.x snapshot.

Steps to reproduce

1. Upgrade to the binutils contained in the Debian Bullseye / SID.
2. Build libr along with current binutils.
3. Try to build tdelibs => it will cause FTBFS.

After adding the metadata, an attempt to run the binary reports:

cannot execute binary file: Exec format error

If it is built without tdelfeditor support, the build is successful.

## Basic information - TDE version: R14.0.9~pre - Distribution: Bullseye / SID - Hardware: any ## Description Probably something has changed in the BFD functions in binutils, because attaching metadata using `tdelfeditor` causes damage to binaries and libraries with the current binutils 2.35.x snapshot. ## Steps to reproduce 1. Upgrade to the binutils contained in the Debian Bullseye / SID. 2. Build libr along with current binutils. 3. Try to build tdelibs => it will cause FTBFS. After adding the metadata, an attempt to run the binary reports: ``` cannot execute binary file: Exec format error ``` If it is built without tdelfeditor support, the build is successful.

SlavekB added the SL/critical label 4 years ago

MicheleC added this to the R14.0.9 release milestone 4 years ago

MicheleC commented 4 years ago

Owner

with binutils 2.34.90, the ELF content is slightly different after the first tdelfeditor call on a file. The file is still usable. Subsequent usage of tdelfeditor on the same file result in the file being corrupted and the format error being reported.

This is the error reported on the second call to tdelfeditor on the same file

BFD: ./newTDEApp.34: warning: empty loadable segment detected at vaddr=0, is this intentional?
BFD: ./newTDEApp.34: warning: empty loadable segment detected at vaddr=0x4000, is this intentional?
BFD: ./newTDEApp.34: warning: empty loadable segment detected at vaddr=0x5000, is this intentional?

with binutils 2.34.90, the ELF content is slightly different after the first tdelfeditor call on a file. The file is still usable. Subsequent usage of tdelfeditor on the same file result in the file being corrupted and the format error being reported. This is the error reported on the second call to tdelfeditor on the same file ``` BFD: ./newTDEApp.34: warning: empty loadable segment detected at vaddr=0, is this intentional? BFD: ./newTDEApp.34: warning: empty loadable segment detected at vaddr=0x4000, is this intentional? BFD: ./newTDEApp.34: warning: empty loadable segment detected at vaddr=0x5000, is this intentional? ```

MicheleC referenced this issue from TDE/tdeaddons 4 years ago

Desktop file translations #9

MicheleC referenced this issue from a commit 4 years ago

Fixed generation of corrupted executables when editing sections. This resolves issue #4. Signed-off-by: Michele Calgaro <michele.calgaro@yahoo.it>

MicheleC referenced this issue from a commit 4 years ago

Fixed generation of corrupted executables when editing sections. This resolves issue #4. Signed-off-by: Michele Calgaro <michele.calgaro@yahoo.it>

MicheleC referenced this issue from a commit 4 years ago

Fixed generation of corrupted executables when editing sections. This resolves issue #4. Signed-off-by: Michele Calgaro <michele.calgaro@yahoo.it>

MicheleC referenced this issue from a commit 4 years ago

Fixed generation of corrupted executables when editing sections. This resolves issue #4. Signed-off-by: Michele Calgaro <michele.calgaro@yahoo.it> (cherry picked from commit ed09509e0b6950bf4f865a21715e73d99bce7106)

MicheleC closed this issue 4 years ago

MicheleC commented 4 years ago

Owner

Fixed by PR #5

Fixed by PR #5

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag Specified

Branches Tags

r14.1.x

master

r14.0.x

r14.1.1

r14.1.0

r14.0.13

r14.0.12

r14.0.11

r14.0.10

r14.0.9

r14.0.8

r14.0.7

r14.0.6

r14.0.5

Labels

Apply labels

Clear labels

GE/need-info
General - need additional info from contributor PR/keep-branch
Pull request - do not delete branch after merging PR/not-ok
Pull request - need fixing PR/rfc
Pull request - request for comments PR/update-trans
Pull request - update to translation files needed PR/wip
Pull request - work in progress RS/R14.0.x
Related to R14.0.x series RS/R14.1.x
Related to R14.1.x series SL/critical
Severity level - critical SL/major
Severity level - major SL/minor
Severity level - minor SL/normal
Severity level - normal SL/regression
Severity level - regression from previous version SL/trivial
Severity level - trivial SL/wishlist
Severity level - wishlist request ST/duplicate
Status - duplicate of another issue ST/invalid
Status - invalid report ST/notourproblem
Status - not our problem ST/rejected
Status - rejected ST/wontfix
Status - won't fix ST/worksforme
Status - works for me, unable to reproduce

No Label GE/need-info PR/keep-branch PR/not-ok PR/rfc PR/update-trans PR/wip RS/R14.0.x RS/R14.1.x SL/critical SL/major SL/minor SL/normal SL/regression SL/trivial SL/wishlist ST/duplicate ST/invalid ST/notourproblem ST/rejected ST/wontfix ST/worksforme

Milestone

Set milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No Milestone

R14.0.9 release

Assignees

Assign users

Clear assignees

No Assignees

2 Participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: TDE/libr#4

Write Preview

Loading…

Cancel

Save

There is no content yet.