Bug 711063

Summary: incorrectly reports missing program
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Roman Rakus <rrakus>
Component: dashAssignee: Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 23CC: huzaifas, maxim, metherid, psabata
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-07-15 09:01:21 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Roman Rakus 2011-06-06 12:41:19 UTC
The same like in bug 60870.
The shell should report the real reason.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.echo 'int main () { return 0; }' > u.c
2.gcc -o u u.c -Wl,-dynamic-linker,/foo/bar/baz
3../u

Comment 1 Fedora End Of Life 2013-04-03 15:03:46 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle.
Changing version to '19'.

(As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development
cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.)

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19

Comment 3 Rahul Sundaram 2014-10-04 22:16:59 UTC
Has this been reported upstream?  What is the status of this?

Comment 4 Fedora End Of Life 2015-01-09 16:41:19 UTC
This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora 
has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is 
Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no 
longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will
be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 19 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 5 Petr Ĺ abata 2015-01-09 17:14:41 UTC
This is still happening.

Comment 6 Jan Kurik 2015-07-15 15:15:33 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle.
Changing version to '23'.

(As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development
cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.)

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23

Comment 7 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala 2016-07-15 09:01:21 UTC
Here is my analysis of this issue:

u is compiled against the dynamic loader "/foo/bar/baz" which does not exists. Here is how dash and bash deal differently with them

1. dash
When run in dash, "./u" is passed to execve(). Since execve() could not find the loader, it bails and dash prints an error (which may not appear to be all that user-friendly) which says "./u: not found"

2. bash
Bash does a similar thing at first. Once execve() fails, it however opens the binary file, extracts the ELF header and tries to figure out what is wrong. It then tells us the loader is bad and prints an error "/foo/bar/baz: bad ELF interpreter"

So i dont think this is a bug in dash, maybe we could do with a better error message, but the problem is that the error message is determined from errno, which itself does not tell us what the "real" problem is.