Discussion:
Using time() leads to binary incompatibility of static executables
Peter Keller
2017-08-02 13:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Dear all,

We have come across a binary compatibility problem involving
Debian-testing: an executable built from the trivial test program at
the end of this message segfaults on Debian-testing in the call to the
time() function, when the executable was built on a CentOS 6 or CentOS
5 system. We have tested this (both compiling and running) on a
variety of other distributions, and we have found that the following
conditions must all be satisfied to trigger the segfault:

* compilation/linking (with 'gcc -g --static test_time.c'):
- on CentOS 5 or CentOS 6
- the executable must be static
- the executable must be 64-bit
* running
- must be run on Debian-testing (kernel 4.11)

The other distributions that we have used to investigate this further
include:

* Debian Stretch (kernel 4.9)
* CentOS 7 (stock kernel, also kernels 4.4 and 4.12 from <http://elrepo.org/>)
* openSUSE 42.2 (kernel 4.4)
* openSUSE Tumbleweed (kernel 4.11)
* Fedora 26 (kernel 4.11)

In our hands, the segfault does not happen if the executable is either
built on one of these other distributions, run on one of them, or
both.

For what it is worth, we observe the same behaviour when building with
various versions of the Intel compilers.

We have not tested building the executable on RedHat or Scientific Linux
systems, but it seems likely that the behaviour would be the same.

I have tried to search the existing bug list to see if anyone else has
reported this. I haven't found anything, but my efforts may not have
been very effective: the search terms for this problem are rather
general, and some of the search engines that are linked to in the
section "Searching bug reports" on <https://www.debian.org/Bugs/>
appear to be broken.

We would be grateful for any comments from someone with more expertise
than us in this area. In particular:

* have we found a bug in Debian-testing, or is binary compatibility
not to be expected under these circumstances?

* if it is a bug, which package should we report it under? (glibc?
linux? some other package?)

* have upcoming changes in unstable or experimental already
addressed this issue?

We are concerned about the possibility that this behaviour might be
present in Debian Buster when it is officially released.

Regards,
Peter Keller

--------------- test_time.c begins here ------------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
int main()
{
time_t now;
char buffer[26];
struct tm* tm_info;
now = time(NULL);
tm_info = localtime(&now);
strftime(buffer, 26, "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S", tm_info);
puts(buffer);
return 0;
}
--------------- test_time.c ends here-- ------------------
Niels Thykier
2017-08-20 05:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Keller
Dear all,
Hi Peter,

Thanks for your interest and for testing the issue.
Post by Peter Keller
We have come across a binary compatibility problem involving
Debian-testing: an executable built from the trivial test program at
the end of this message segfaults on Debian-testing in the call to the
time() function, when the executable was built on a CentOS 6 or CentOS
5 system. We have tested this (both compiling and running) on a
variety of other distributions, and we have found that the following
- on CentOS 5 or CentOS 6
- the executable must be static
- the executable must be 64-bit
* running
- must be run on Debian-testing (kernel 4.11)
We very recently got a kernel 4.12.2 in Debian testing:

* Could you test if that fixes the problem?

* FYI, there was a glibc migration today. So both has been updated
recently.

If not, let us move on to filing an actual bug.
Post by Peter Keller
[...]
We would be grateful for any comments from someone with more expertise
* have we found a bug in Debian-testing, or is binary compatibility
not to be expected under these circumstances?
I suspect you have found a bug, but I am not entirely sure. At first
glance, I believe it should work/be compatible. However, I would prefer
to let people, who understand the technical aspect of the problem,
answer this part if it has not been fixed by the recent changes. :)
Post by Peter Keller
* if it is a bug, which package should we report it under? (glibc?
linux? some other package?)
Good question. When you tested in debian testing with linux 4.9 and
linux 4.11, was the only different the kernel? If so, I would go for
the linux kernel.

If you want/need to retest it, please remember that we have the
snapshot.debian.org service, which can provide you with versions of the
archive as they looked on a given day.
Post by Peter Keller
* have upcoming changes in unstable or experimental already
addressed this issue?
Not that I know of, but I have not tried. To be honest, I think you
might be a better judge of that if you are willing to test unstable. :)

Anyway, if the recent updates have not fixed the issue, please let us
look into filing a bug. :)

Hope it was helpful. :)

Thanks,
Niels
Peter Keller
2017-08-23 10:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Dear Niels,

Thanks for responding.
Post by Niels Thykier
Post by Peter Keller
Dear all,
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your interest and for testing the issue.
Post by Peter Keller
We have come across a binary compatibility problem involving
Debian-testing: an executable built from the trivial test program at
the end of this message segfaults on Debian-testing in the call to the
time() function, when the executable was built on a CentOS 6 or CentOS
5 system. We have tested this (both compiling and running) on a
variety of other distributions, and we have found that the following
- on CentOS 5 or CentOS 6
- the executable must be static
- the executable must be 64-bit
* running
- must be run on Debian-testing (kernel 4.11)
* Could you test if that fixes the problem?
* FYI, there was a glibc migration today. So both has been updated
recently.
OK, after doing:

apt-get update
apt-get install linux-image-4.12.0
apt-get upgrade

and rebooting into the new kernel, the problem persists. On the system I
set up for testing this, 'uname -a' now gives:

Linux deb-testing 4.12.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.12.6-1 (2017-08-12)
x86_64 GNU/Linux
Post by Niels Thykier
If not, let us move on to filing an actual bug.
OK - thanks.
Post by Niels Thykier
Post by Peter Keller
[...]
We would be grateful for any comments from someone with more expertise
* have we found a bug in Debian-testing, or is binary compatibility
not to be expected under these circumstances?
I suspect you have found a bug, but I am not entirely sure. At first
glance, I believe it should work/be compatible. However, I would prefer
to let people, who understand the technical aspect of the problem,
answer this part if it has not been fixed by the recent changes. :)
Post by Peter Keller
* if it is a bug, which package should we report it under? (glibc?
linux? some other package?)
Good question. When you tested in debian testing with linux 4.9 and
linux 4.11, was the only different the kernel? If so, I would go for
the linux kernel.
Well, this problem came to our attention when a user of our software
reported problems. He told us that our software worked or failed on
almost identical systems that differed only in the running kernel (4.9
and 4.11). We then narrowed it down to the time() function.

Unfortunately, our Debian guru is on holiday and I am more familiar with
other distros. I haven't been able to work out a way of installing
kernel 4.9 into Debian-testing that I am happy with, so I haven't tested
this myself. Is it OK to put something like the following in
/etc/apt/sources.list:

deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ stable main

and do 'apt-get install linux-image-4.9.0', or would that cause other
problems?

Sorry for the long-winded answer, but it looks at the moment that it
does depend on the kernel.
Post by Niels Thykier
If you want/need to retest it, please remember that we have the
snapshot.debian.org service, which can provide you with versions of the
archive as they looked on a given day.
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.
Post by Niels Thykier
Post by Peter Keller
* have upcoming changes in unstable or experimental already
addressed this issue?
Not that I know of, but I have not tried. To be honest, I think you
might be a better judge of that if you are willing to test unstable. :)
Anyway, if the recent updates have not fixed the issue, please let us
look into filing a bug. :)
Hope it was helpful. :)
Yes, very, many thanks. What are the next steps towards filing this a
bug? With a hint about the proper way to install kernel 4.9 into
Debian-testing, I could easily check with that kernel version first.

Regards,
Peter.
--
Peter Keller Tel.: +44 (0)1223 353033
Global Phasing Ltd., Fax.: +44 (0)1223 366889
Sheraton House,
Castle Park,
Cambridge CB3 0AX
United Kingdom
Loading...