RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 679435 - The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
Summary: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: binutils
Version: 6.1
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Andreas Schwab
QA Contact: qe-baseos-tools-bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 614443
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-02-22 15:18 UTC by Miroslav Suchý
Modified: 2011-05-19 13:41 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.18.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-05-19 13:41:04 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2011:0614 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE binutils bug fix and enhancement update 2011-05-19 09:47:46 UTC
Sourceware 12516 0 None None None Never

Description Miroslav Suchý 2011-02-22 15:18:50 UTC 
Description of problem:
I'm trying to build oracle-instantclient in brew, but I'm getting in build.log:

+ find /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64 -type f
+ xargs file
+ awk -F: '/ELF/ {print $1}'
+ xargs /usr/bin/strip
BFD: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/bin/stEh3vPb: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
/usr/bin/strip:/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/bin/stEh3vPb[.interp]: Bad value
BFD: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/bin/stEh3vPb: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
/usr/bin/strip:/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/bin/stEh3vPb: Bad value
BFD: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/bin/stTqSlIB: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
/usr/bin/strip:/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/bin/stTqSlIB[.interp]: Bad value
BFD: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/bin/stTqSlIB: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
/usr/bin/strip:/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/bin/stTqSlIB: Bad value
BFD: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/lib/stwNoeB1: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
/usr/bin/strip:/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/lib/stwNoeB1[.hash]: Bad value
BFD: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/lib/stwNoeB1: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
/usr/bin/strip:/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/lib/stwNoeB1: Bad value
BFD: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/lib/stP3ArDx: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
/usr/bin/strip:/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/lib/stP3ArDx[.hash]: Bad value
BFD: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/lib/stP3ArDx: The first section in the PT_DYNAMIC segment is not the .dynamic section
/usr/bin/strip:/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/oracle-instantclient-10.2.0-47.el6sat.x86_64/usr/lib/oracle/10.2.0.4/client64/lib/stP3ArDx: Bad value
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.096OYF (%install)
RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.096OYF (%install)

I can confirm that this happen on x86_64 and not on i686 arch.

I'm able to build the package if I have binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.15.el6 in buildroot sucessfully. If I put there binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.16.el6 this bug will start to appear.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.17.el6

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Try to rebuild https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com//taskinfo?taskID=3130864
2. make sure binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.17.el6 or binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.16.el6 is in buildroot.

  
Actual results:
see above

Expected results:
no errors

Additional info:
Comment 2 Andreas Schwab 2011-02-22 15:58:42 UTC 
Does that also happen with binutils-2.21.51.0.6-1?
Comment 3 Miroslav Suchý 2011-02-22 16:25:09 UTC 
binutils-2.21.51.0.6-1 is not in brew.

But I can say that it does *not* happend with binutils-2.20.51.0.7-6.fc14.x86_64

The problem is present in latest two RHEL6 builds.
Comment 4 Andreas Schwab 2011-02-22 16:40:12 UTC 
2.20.51.0.7 is way too old, please test the latest one.
Comment 5 Miroslav Suchý 2011-02-23 09:12:17 UTC 
As I said, I tested it with binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.17.el6 (which has this bug) and according the brew:
https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/packageinfo?packageID=196
It is most recent one.

2.20.51.0.7 is the latest which works. Everything above (what is in brew) contains this bug.
Comment 6 Andreas Schwab 2011-02-23 09:22:00 UTC 
This is useless, please test 2.21.51.0.6.
Comment 7 Miroslav Suchý 2011-02-23 09:37:03 UTC 
And where I can find 2.21.51.0.6 build? Can you give me url?
Comment 8 Andreas Schwab 2011-02-23 09:42:03 UTC 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=227947
Comment 9 Miroslav Suchý 2011-02-23 10:10:29 UTC 
Ehm, but that is Fedora build. Which I'm not unable to install on RHEL6:
[root@dell-per300-01 ~]# rpm -Uvh  binutils-2.21.51.0.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
        libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)(64bit) is needed by binutils-2.21.51.0.6-1.fc15.x86_64
        libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) is needed by binutils-2.21.51.0.6-1.fc15.x86_64
[root@dell-per300-01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release 
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation release 6.1 Beta (Santiago)

But if you want to compare Fedora and RHEL. In Fedora 14 with binutils-2.20.51.0.7-6.fc14.x86_64 this bug is not present.

This bug is only present in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.1! And it is regression.
Comment 11 Andreas Schwab 2011-02-23 10:46:20 UTC 
(In reply to comment #9)
> Ehm, but that is Fedora build. Which I'm not unable to install on RHEL6:

So what's the problem if you are able to install it?

> But if you want to compare Fedora and RHEL. In Fedora 14 with
> binutils-2.20.51.0.7-6.fc14.x86_64 this bug is not present.

As I already told you this is way too old!
Comment 12 Miroslav Suchý 2011-02-23 13:14:42 UTC 
s/I'm not unable/I'm unable/
Sorry bad English.
Comment 13 Miroslav Suchý 2011-02-23 14:08:46 UTC 
If I remove binutils-rh614443.patch from src.rpm and rebuild the package it will start working.
Comment 20 errata-xmlrpc 2011-05-19 13:41:04 UTC 
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0614.html
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.