-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 486
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-lookup.c: 966: _dl_setup_hash: Assertion `(bitmask_nwords & (bitmask_nwords - 1)) == 0' failed! #368
Comments
Note: if you get a build failure in libredirect, set I think these two problems are a result of me just picking a bad day to rebase against |
This problem also occurs if you try to |
I've been attempting to make further progress on this. Strangely, mips Edit: the guess below was incorrectMy best guess is the major overhaul of how they handle thread-local storage.A
And
I'll keep working on this. |
Edit: the guess below was incorrectMore evidence supporting my suspicion: in glibc-2.34:
I strongly suspect that |
Describe the bug
During the nixpkgs bootstrap process, binaries which link against a patchelf'ed
librt.so.1
abort with:Steps To Reproduce
Set your
NIX_PATH
explicitly, if you have not yet done so (i.e. such that$NIX_PATH/nixpkgs/
points to a git checkout of nixpkgs).Execute these commands to build the mips64el bootstrap tools, mips64el-nix, and launch a mips64el qemu VM:
Once the VM boots to a root shell, paste this command:
You should get:
This is due to the attempt to
patchelf --set-rpath librt.so
; if you don't patchelf that, (but instead patchelf other libraries, as I do here), you won't get this error. Note thatlibrt.so
has no RPATH prior to patchelf'ing. I suspect that the problem here is some corner case involving--set-rpath
on a library that did not have one to begin with.Expected behavior
The bootstrap completes.
patchelf --version
outputAdditional context
The last commit in the nixpkgs repo used above is just a bit of paranoia; you can drop that commit and you'll still get the same result.
I discussed this bug here but I'm no longer sure it is the same problem the person who opened that bug was having. In order to avoid hijacking their bug I am opening a separate one now that I have a simple way to reproduce the issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: