Bug 1295951
| Summary: | Unsupported/confusing golang notes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil> |
| Component: | elfutils | Assignee: | Mark Wielaard <mjw> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 24 | CC: | aoliva, fche, jakub, me, mjw, mjw, roland |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | elfutils-0.166-1.fc24 elfutils-0.166-1.fc23 elfutils-0.166-1.fc22 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-04-09 14:21:19 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
You are right, we seem to not check the note originator name and assume it is "GNU" if we don't recognize it. This needs fixing in ebl_object_note and ebl_object_note_type_name. Proposed a patch upstream:
commit 58ec17dbc828160f46c9bb4bc7ab97b44ac6b8fc
Author: Mark Wielaard <mjw>
Date: Fri Feb 12 15:04:00 2016 +0100
libebl: Don't assume ELF notes are "GNU" when unknown, recognize "Go" notes.
We used to assume any unknown ELF note provider name was "GNU" and didn't
recognize any of the "Go" provider types. We now check the provider name
explictly in ebl_object_note_type_name and recognize the following Go
note names: PKGLIST, ABIHASH, DEPS and BUILDID. But there is no attempt
yet in ebl_object_note to decode the description of these notes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295951
Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard <mjw>
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle. Changing version to '24'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora24#Rawhide_Rebase This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see mmccune with any questions elfutils-0.166-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e54f96cc35 elfutils-0.166-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e54f96cc35 elfutils-0.166-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. elfutils-0.166-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9ebdb3d44e elfutils-0.166-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6d6f111230 elfutils-0.166-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9ebdb3d44e elfutils-0.166-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6d6f111230 elfutils-0.166-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. elfutils-0.166-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |
Description of problem: Upstream Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: echo -e 'package main\nfunc main() {}' >foo.go;/usr/lib/golang/bin/go build -a foo.go;eu-readelf -Wn foo Actual results: Note section [11] '.note.go.buildid' of 56 bytes at offset 0xfc8: Owner Data size Type Go 40 GNU_GOLD_VERSION Expected results: Note section [11] '.note.go.buildid' of 56 bytes at offset 0xfc8: Owner Data size Type Go 40 ELF_NOTE_GOBUILDID_TAG Build ID: db4fe260f8ebfa316307ed224cc8fa860fe60e3f Additional info: https://go.googlesource.com/go/+/master/src/cmd/link/internal/ld/elf.go#1280 ELF_NOTE_GOPKGLIST_TAG = 1 ELF_NOTE_GOABIHASH_TAG = 2 ELF_NOTE_GODEPS_TAG = 3 ELF_NOTE_GOBUILDID_TAG = 4 vs. /usr/include/elf.h #define NT_GNU_GOLD_VERSION 4 $ objdump -s -j .note.go.buildid foo Contents of section .note.go.buildid: 400fc8 04000000 28000000 04000000 476f0000 ....(.......Go.. 400fd8 64623466 65323630 66386562 66613331 db4fe260f8ebfa31 400fe8 36333037 65643232 34636338 66613836 6307ed224cc8fa86 400ff8 30666536 30653366 0fe60e3f $ readelf -n foo Displaying notes found at file offset 0x00000fc8 with length 0x00000038: Owner Data size Description Go 0x00000028 Unknown note type: (0x00000004)