glibc 2.26 refuses to run on CentOS 6.8

Done

Details

8 participants

Danny Milosavljevic
Efraim Flashner
Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Leo Famulari
Ludovic Courtès
Mark H Weaver
Ricardo Wurmus
Ricardo Wurmus

Owner: unassigned

Submitted by: Ricardo Wurmus

Severity: serious

Debbugs page

Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 19 Feb 2018 10:46

Recipients:(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)(address . guix-devel@gnu.org)

Message-ID:87eflgstqt.fsf@mdc-berlin.de

Hi Guix,

I have a bad day. After the upgrade to glibc 2.26 none of the

Guix-installed software runs on the HPC cluster running CentOS 6.8.

The glibc 2.26 expects a minimum kernel version of 3.x on x86_64, but

CentOS 6.8 only comes with a heavily patched 2.6.32.

The NixOS developers patch glibc to make sure that all software still

runs on Linux 2.6.32:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/master/pkgs/development/libraries/glibc/allow-kernel-2.6.32.patch

Can we please also apply this? Without this Guix on HPC is pretty much

dead at the MDC.

Toggle diff (39 lines)diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure
index cace758c01..38fe7fe0b0 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ fi
 { $as_echo "$as_me:${as_lineno-$LINENO}: checking for kernel header at least $minimum_kernel" >&5
 $as_echo_n "checking for kernel header at least $minimum_kernel... " >&6; }
 decnum=`echo "$minimum_kernel.0.0.0" | sed 's/\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\).*/(\1 * 65536 + \2 * 256 + \3)/'`;
-abinum=`echo "$minimum_kernel.0.0.0" | sed 's/\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\).*/\1,\2,\3/'`;
+abinum=`echo "2.6.32.0.0.0" | sed 's/\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\).*/\1,\2,\3/'`;
 cat confdefs.h - <<_ACEOF >conftest.$ac_ext
 /* end confdefs.h.  */
 #include <linux/version.h>
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.ac b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.ac
index 13abda0a51..6abc12eaed 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.ac
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/configure.ac
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ fi
 AC_MSG_CHECKING(for kernel header at least $minimum_kernel)
 changequote(,)dnl
 decnum=`echo "$minimum_kernel.0.0.0" | sed 's/\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\).*/(\1 * 65536 + \2 * 256 + \3)/'`;
-abinum=`echo "$minimum_kernel.0.0.0" | sed 's/\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\).*/\1,\2,\3/'`;
+abinum=`echo "2.6.32.0.0.0" | sed 's/\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\)\.\([0-9]*\).*/\1,\2,\3/'`;
 changequote([,])dnl
 AC_TRY_COMPILE([#include <linux/version.h>
 #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < $decnum
diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dl-osinfo.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dl-osinfo.h
index 823cd8224d..482caaeeec 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dl-osinfo.h
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dl-osinfo.h
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
 	  GLRO(dl_osversion) = version;					      \
 									      \
 	/* Now we can test with the required version.  */		      \
-	if (__LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION > 0 && version < __LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION)   \
+	if (__LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION > 0 && version < __LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION && version != 0x020620)   \
 	  /* Not sufficent.  */						      \
 	  FATAL ("FATAL: kernel too old\n");				      \
       }									      \

Ricardo

Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 19 Feb 2018 11:41

Recipients:(address . guix-devel@gnu.org)(address . 30537@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:878tbosr7h.fsf@mdc-berlin.de

Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> writes:

Toggle quote (18 lines)> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> writes:
>>
>>> The NixOS developers patch glibc to make sure that all software still
>>> runs on Linux 2.6.32:
>>>
>>>     https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/master/pkgs/development/libraries/glibc/allow-kernel-2.6.32.patch
>>>
>>> Can we please also apply this?
>>
>> We could also apply this conditionally to x86_64 only, because that’s
>> probably the only architecture that’s used for HPC systems running
>> CentOS.
>
> Here’s a patch to graft the glibc to apply the patch to allow the 2.6.32
> kernel.  I’m going to apply this at work now.

That patch had a couple of problems. Here’s a new version.

The main differences are:

* fix an undefined variable (“base” –> “glibc”)

* use package/inherit for glibc-final and

glibc-final-with-bootstrap-bash; don’t override the “replacement”

field with “#f”

Ricardo

Attachment: 0001-WIP-graft-glibc-to-allow-execution-on-Linux-2.6.32.patch

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote on 19 Feb 2018 12:28

Recipients:(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de)

Message-ID:87tvucg1w6.fsf@gnu.org

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

Toggle quote (5 lines)

>> Here’s a patch to graft the glibc to apply the patch to allow the 2.6.32

>> kernel. I’m going to apply this at work now.

> That patch had a couple of problems. Here’s a new version.

Sad to hear of your troubles, thanks a lot for posting this.  We
discovered at Verum that a guix pack would not run on CentOS and
took another road in the end.  Good to know there's still a way
to work around this.

Thanks,
janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com| Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 19 Feb 2018 13:22

Recipients:(name . Danny Milosavljevic)(address . dannym@scratchpost.org)

Message-ID:87606ssmi3.fsf@elephly.net

Hi Danny,

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> Can you try just passing --enable-kernel=2.6.32 to "configure" of glibc instead?

> It should set the minimal version without any weird patching.

Does this work even though the official minimum kernel version for glibc

2.26 is 3.2.0?

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> But newer glibc has moved a lot of kernel definitions into glibc, might cause a

> problem if glibc just assumes it's all there but in fact it's not there at

> runtime (like the recent Haskell problem etc).

The Red Hat kernels are a bit special in that they are not just old

kernels, but heavily patched to work with newer software. The Nix

people wrote that they have confirmed that 2.6.32 works up to

glibc-2.26-131.

There are additional notes on how that was done:

# HOWTO: check glibc sources for changes in kernel requirements

git log -p glibc-2.25.. sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/kernel-features.h sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h

# get kernel sources (update the URL)

mkdir tmp && cd tmp

curl http://vault.centos.org/6.9/os/Source/SPackages/kernel-2.6.32-696.el6.src.rpm| rpm2cpio - | cpio -idmv

tar xf linux-*.bz2

# check syscall presence, for example

less linux-*?/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S

If there was a way to test for kernel features instead of looking at the

kernel version I’d do that instead of looking for a way to relax the

lower kernel version bound.

Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC

https://elephly.net

Danny Milosavljevic wrote on 19 Feb 2018 14:46

Recipients:(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . rekado@elephly.net)

Message-ID:20180219234603.69a821a7@scratchpost.org

Hi Ricardo,

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> Does this work even though the official minimum kernel version for glibc

> 2.26 is 3.2.0?

I think so, BUT the patchset looks pretty similar to what would happen

if you specified the configure flag except for one spot.

So maybe Nix found out some ill effects.

The most worrying part in glibc is

#if __LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION < 0x040300

# undef __ASSUME_ACCEPT4_SYSCALL

# undef __ASSUME_SENDMSG_SYSCALL

# undef __ASSUME_RECVMSG_SYSCALL

# undef __ASSUME_CONNECT_SYSCALL

# undef __ASSUME_RECVFROM_SYSCALL

# undef __ASSUME_SENDTO_SYSCALL

#endif

So that would have to be watched out for.

__ASSUME_CONNECT_SYSCALL is some scary stuff. Getting it wrong could break all

networking in the system.

Toggle quote (5 lines)

> The Red Hat kernels are a bit special in that they are not just old

> kernels, but heavily patched to work with newer software. The Nix

> people wrote that they have confirmed that 2.6.32 works up to

> glibc-2.26-131.

Oh, I didn't know that. If it's tested that way, let's use it that way

for the time being.

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> If there was a way to test for kernel features instead of looking at the

> kernel version I’d do that instead of looking for a way to relax the

> lower kernel version bound.

Yeah...

Leo Famulari wrote on 19 Feb 2018 17:22

Recipients:(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de)(address . 30537@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:20180220012229.GA28522@jasmine.lan

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 07:46:02PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:

Toggle quote (8 lines)

> The NixOS developers patch glibc to make sure that all software still

> runs on Linux 2.6.32:

> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/master/pkgs/development/libraries/glibc/allow-kernel-2.6.32.patch

> Can we please also apply this? Without this Guix on HPC is pretty much

> dead at the MDC.

My questions are, how does the glibc team choose the minimum kernel
version? What could go wrong if we apply this patch and somebody uses
Guix on a pre-3.2.0 kernel?

Perhaps they simply chose to not support glibc on any kernel that is not
supported upstream; 3.2.x is the oldest supported release series. But,
we should have some idea of their reasoning, in my opinion.

Efraim Flashner wrote on 20 Feb 2018 01:39

Re: bug#30537: glibc 2.26 refuses to run on CentOS 6.8

Recipients:(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de)

Message-ID:20180220093910.GA23825@macbook41

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 07:46:02PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:

Toggle quote (17 lines)> Hi Guix,
> 
> I have a bad day.  After the upgrade to glibc 2.26 none of the
> Guix-installed software runs on the HPC cluster running CentOS 6.8.
> 
> The glibc 2.26 expects a minimum kernel version of 3.x on x86_64, but
> CentOS 6.8 only comes with a heavily patched 2.6.32.
> 
> The NixOS developers patch glibc to make sure that all software still
> runs on Linux 2.6.32:
> 
>     https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/master/pkgs/development/libraries/glibc/allow-kernel-2.6.32.patch
> 
> Can we please also apply this?  Without this Guix on HPC is pretty much
> dead at the MDC.
> 

We should also update the docs with the (new) minimum specs as needed.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

Leo Famulari wrote on 20 Feb 2018 03:52

Re: glibc 2.26 refuses to run on CentOS 6.8

Recipients:(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de)(address . 30537@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:20180220115221.GA17373@jasmine.lan

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 08:22:29PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:

Toggle quote (8 lines)

> My questions are, how does the glibc team choose the minimum kernel

> version? What could go wrong if we apply this patch and somebody uses

> Guix on a pre-3.2.0 kernel?

> Perhaps they simply chose to not support glibc on any kernel that is not

> supported upstream; 3.2.x is the oldest supported release series. But,

> we should have some idea of their reasoning, in my opinion.

As far as I can tell, the discussion started on the libc-alpha mailing

list in January 2016:

https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-01/msg00885.html

... and continued into February:

https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-02/msg00002.html

These messages can provide some useful context.

Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 20 Feb 2018 04:34

Recipients:(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 30537@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87woz7rga4.fsf@mdc-berlin.de

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

Toggle quote (20 lines)> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 08:22:29PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> My questions are, how does the glibc team choose the minimum kernel
>> version? What could go wrong if we apply this patch and somebody uses
>> Guix on a pre-3.2.0 kernel?
>>
>> Perhaps they simply chose to not support glibc on any kernel that is not
>> supported upstream; 3.2.x is the oldest supported release series. But,
>> we should have some idea of their reasoning, in my opinion.
>
> As far as I can tell, the discussion started on the libc-alpha mailing
> list in January 2016:
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-01/msg00885.html
>
> ... and continued into February:
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-02/msg00002.html
>
> These messages can provide some useful context.

The only reason for moving the lower bound to Linux 3.2 is that 2.6 has

reached EOL. This allows the glibc developers to assume certain

kernel features and simplify their code.

The RHEL kernels are special, though, in that they are continuously

patched beyond recognition, backporting features. A RHEL 2.6.32 kernel

is very different from a stock 2.6.32 kernel.

The patch explicitly permits a *single* extra kernel version (0x020620 =

2.6.32) at runtime, not *all* older kernels, so it isn’t as bad as it

may seem.

For future updates to the glibc we would have to re-evaluate if the

current RHEL 6.x kernel still supports all features the glibc expects,

and decide once more if we can justify patching glibc to allow that one

particular kernel version.

Ricardo

Leo Famulari wrote on 20 Feb 2018 04:51

Recipients:(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de)(address . 30537@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:20180220125136.GA7573@jasmine.lan

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 01:34:27PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:

Toggle quote (12 lines)> The only reason for moving the lower bound to Linux 3.2 is that 2.6 has
> reached EOL.  This allows the glibc developers to assume certain
> kernel features and simplify their code.
> 
> The RHEL kernels are special, though, in that they are continuously
> patched beyond recognition, backporting features.  A RHEL 2.6.32 kernel
> is very different from a stock 2.6.32 kernel.
> 
> The patch explicitly permits a *single* extra kernel version (0x020620 =
> 2.6.32) at runtime, not *all* older kernels, so it isn’t as bad as it
> may seem.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Toggle quote (5 lines)

> For future updates to the glibc we would have to re-evaluate if the

> current RHEL 6.x kernel still supports all features the glibc expects,

> and decide once more if we can justify patching glibc to allow that one

> particular kernel version.

Yes... and this will probably continue for many years. But I do think we
should do something to work around the issue now, and reevaluate our
solution when the pressure is off.

It would be nice if the graft only applied to x86_64-linux, but I've
never considered if that is easy to do or not.

Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 20 Feb 2018 06:33

Recipients:(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 30537@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:idj606r4tnv.fsf@bimsb-sys02.mdc-berlin.net

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

Toggle quote (12 lines)>> For future updates to the glibc we would have to re-evaluate if the
>> current RHEL 6.x kernel still supports all features the glibc expects,
>> and decide once more if we can justify patching glibc to allow that one
>> particular kernel version.
>
> Yes... and this will probably continue for many years. But I do think we
> should do something to work around the issue now, and reevaluate our
> solution when the pressure is off.
>
> It would be nice if the graft only applied to x86_64-linux, but I've
> never considered if that is easy to do or not.

I don’t know if we can graft a package only for a single architecture.

At least at the time of ungrafting we could apply the patch only on

x86_64 (and only rebuild the world for that architecture).

FWIW: I’ve applied this patch to the installation at the MDC and it

works fine. The biggest downside here is the slowness of grafts over

NFS (I still need to update the protocol to NFS 4.1) and the many lines

of output that are amplified by communicating with a remote daemon.

Other than that I’m happy that this crisis could be temporarily averted.

I’d like to have this in master, though, so that people can run “guix

pull” again and actually get working software.

Ricardo

Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 20 Feb 2018 09:55

Recipients:(address . 30537@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87sh9vr1ej.fsf@mdc-berlin.de

Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> writes:

Toggle quote (28 lines)> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>
>>> For future updates to the glibc we would have to re-evaluate if the
>>> current RHEL 6.x kernel still supports all features the glibc expects,
>>> and decide once more if we can justify patching glibc to allow that one
>>> particular kernel version.
>>
>> Yes... and this will probably continue for many years. But I do think we
>> should do something to work around the issue now, and reevaluate our
>> solution when the pressure is off.
>>
>> It would be nice if the graft only applied to x86_64-linux, but I've
>> never considered if that is easy to do or not.
>
> I don’t know if we can graft a package only for a single architecture.
> At least at the time of ungrafting we could apply the patch only on
> x86_64 (and only rebuild the world for that architecture).
>
> FWIW: I’ve applied this patch to the installation at the MDC and it
> works fine.  The biggest downside here is the slowness of grafts over
> NFS (I still need to update the protocol to NFS 4.1) and the many lines
> of output that are amplified by communicating with a remote daemon.
>
> Other than that I’m happy that this crisis could be temporarily averted.
>
> I’d like to have this in master, though, so that people can run “guix
> pull” again and actually get working software.

I should note that now every Guix command first prints this:

GC Warning: pthread_getattr_np or pthread_attr_getstack failed for main thread

I suspect that this is not good. Guix was built with the grafted glibc.

Ricardo

Mark H Weaver wrote on 21 Feb 2018 15:12

Re: bug#30537: glibc 2.26 refuses to run on CentOS 6.8

Recipients:(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de)

Message-ID:87bmgiey3k.fsf@netris.org

Hi Ricardo,

Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> writes:

Toggle quote (7 lines)

> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> writes:

>> Here’s a patch to graft the glibc to apply the patch to allow the 2.6.32

>> kernel. I’m going to apply this at work now.

> That patch had a couple of problems. Here’s a new version.

[...]

Toggle quote (66 lines)> diff --git a/gnu/packages/base.scm b/gnu/packages/base.scm
> index b2c1d232f..111bbbcec 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/base.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/base.scm
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  ;;; Copyright © 2017 Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe@gmail.com>
>  ;;; Copyright © 2017 Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
>  ;;; Copyright © 2017 Eric Bavier <bavier@member.fsf.org>
> +;;; Copyright © 2018 Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
>  ;;;
>  ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
>  ;;;
> @@ -537,6 +538,7 @@ store.")
>     ;; Note: Always use a dot after the minor version since various places rely
>     ;; on "version-major+minor" to determine where locales are found.
>     (version "2.26.105-g0890d5379c")
> +   (replacement glibc-2.26-patched)
>     (source (origin
>              (method url-fetch)
>              (uri (string-append "https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/mirror/"
> @@ -839,10 +841,20 @@ GLIBC/HURD for a Hurd host"
>  ;; Below are old libc versions, which we use mostly to build locale data in
>  ;; the old format (which the new libc cannot cope with.)
>  
> +(define glibc-2.26-patched
> +  (package
> +    (inherit glibc)
> +    (replacement #f)
> +    (source (origin
> +              (inherit (package-source glibc))
> +              (patches (cons (search-patch "glibc-allow-kernel-2.6.32.patch")
> +                             (origin-patches (package-source glibc))))))))
> +
>  (define-public glibc-2.25
>    (package
>      (inherit glibc)
>      (version "2.25")
> +    (replacement #f)
>      (source (origin
>                (inherit (package-source glibc))
>                (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/glibc/glibc-"
> @@ -862,6 +874,7 @@ GLIBC/HURD for a Hurd host"
>    (package
>      (inherit glibc)
>      (version "2.24")
> +    (replacement #f)
>      (source (origin
>                (inherit (package-source glibc))
>                (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/glibc/glibc-"
> @@ -882,6 +895,7 @@ GLIBC/HURD for a Hurd host"
>    (package
>      (inherit glibc)
>      (version "2.23")
> +    (replacement #f)
>      (source (origin
>                (inherit (package-source glibc))
>                (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/glibc/glibc-"
> @@ -905,6 +919,7 @@ GLIBC/HURD for a Hurd host"
>    (package
>      (inherit glibc)
>      (version "2.22")
> +    (replacement #f)
>      (source (origin
>                (inherit (package-source glibc))
>                (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/glibc/glibc-"

These (replacement #f) fields should not be needed. 'replacement' is

now an 'innate' field of the package record type, which means that it is

not inherited.

Toggle quote (31 lines)> diff --git a/gnu/packages/commencement.scm b/gnu/packages/commencement.scm
> index 7286e954c..db43691fd 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/commencement.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/commencement.scm
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>  ;;; Copyright © 2012 Nikita Karetnikov <nikita@karetnikov.org>
>  ;;; Copyright © 2014, 2015, 2017 Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
>  ;;; Copyright © 2017, 2018 Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>
> +;;; Copyright © 2018 Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
>  ;;;
>  ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
>  ;;;
> @@ -486,7 +487,7 @@ the bootstrap environment."
>    ;; built just below; the only difference is that this one uses the
>    ;; bootstrap Bash.
>    (package-with-bootstrap-guile
> -   (package (inherit glibc)
> +   (package/inherit glibc
>       (name "glibc-intermediate")
>       (arguments
>        `(#:guile ,%bootstrap-guile
> @@ -664,7 +665,7 @@ exec ~a/bin/~a-~a -B~a/lib -Wl,-dynamic-linker -Wl,~a/~a \"$@\"~%"
>  
>  (define glibc-final
>    ;; The final glibc, which embeds the statically-linked Bash built above.
> -  (package (inherit glibc-final-with-bootstrap-bash)
> +  (package/inherit glibc-final-with-bootstrap-bash
>      (name "glibc")
>      (inputs `(("static-bash" ,static-bash-for-glibc)
>                ,@(alist-delete

We seem to be oscillating on the question of whether to graft these
early GLIBCs.  In June 2017, I switched to using 'package/inherit' here
in commit 13f7f2fd2b208c29361ef2290f55911879a6adf2, and in October those
changes were reverted in commit 848f550f2c105326dc3be4033c8aaf35ec21cde4
by Efraim, although I'm not sure why.

It'll be painful to have *everything* grafted until the next
core-updates cycle, but I suppose it's necessary.

      Thanks,
        Mark

Efraim Flashner wrote on 22 Feb 2018 12:30

Recipients:(name . Mark H Weaver)(address . mhw@netris.org)

Message-ID:20180222203054.GC4154@macbook41

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:12:31PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> Hi Ricardo,

...

Toggle quote (8 lines)

> We seem to be oscillating on the question of whether to graft these

> early GLIBCs. In June 2017, I switched to using 'package/inherit' here

> in commit 13f7f2fd2b208c29361ef2290f55911879a6adf2, and in October those

> changes were reverted in commit 848f550f2c105326dc3be4033c8aaf35ec21cde4

> by Efraim, although I'm not sure why.

Probably a misunderstanding on my part, I assumed it was switched to

package/inherit as part of the grafting, and then should be switched

back.

Toggle quote (7 lines)

> It'll be painful to have *everything* grafted until the next

> core-updates cycle, but I suppose it's necessary.

> Thanks,

> Mark

We could also have an 'ungraft everything' branch before we get to the
next round of core-updates.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 23 Feb 2018 14:01

Grafts vs. early bootstrapping packages

Recipients:(name . Mark H Weaver)(address . mhw@netris.org)

Message-ID:87muzz9xhm.fsf_-_@gnu.org

Hello,

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (2 lines)

>> Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> writes:

[...]

Toggle quote (14 lines)>>  (define glibc-final
>>    ;; The final glibc, which embeds the statically-linked Bash built above.
>> -  (package (inherit glibc-final-with-bootstrap-bash)
>> +  (package/inherit glibc-final-with-bootstrap-bash
>>      (name "glibc")
>>      (inputs `(("static-bash" ,static-bash-for-glibc)
>>                ,@(alist-delete
>
> We seem to be oscillating on the question of whether to graft these
> early GLIBCs.  In June 2017, I switched to using 'package/inherit' here
> in commit 13f7f2fd2b208c29361ef2290f55911879a6adf2, and in October those
> changes were reverted in commit 848f550f2c105326dc3be4033c8aaf35ec21cde4
> by Efraim, although I'm not sure why.

I doesn’t make sense to graft “glibc-intermediate” because it’s only

used in ‘static-bash-for-glibc’, which statically links against it. The

situation is similar with the “-boot0” packages: they are not referenced

by the packages we use.

So I think 848f550f2c105326dc3be4033c8aaf35ec21cde4 was a good idea.

f00b85ff8d34df0a1879e593d4a85629b8586af7 does something similar.

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 23 Feb 2018 14:26

Re: glibc 2.26 refuses to run on CentOS 6.8

Recipients:(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de)

Message-ID:87fu5r9wcb.fsf@gnu.org

Hello,

Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wurmus@mdc-berlin.de> skribis:

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> I have a bad day. After the upgrade to glibc 2.26 none of the

> Guix-installed software runs on the HPC cluster running CentOS 6.8.

Bah. :-(

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> The glibc 2.26 expects a minimum kernel version of 3.x on x86_64, but

> CentOS 6.8 only comes with a heavily patched 2.6.32.

It’s annoying, but we can surely apply the patch you sent (though rather

by passing ‘--enable-kernel’ if possible, as Danny suggested.)

personality(2) has a knob to change the kernel version reported by

uname(2) to 2.6. Here it’s a case where we’d need the reverse:

reporting 3.2 instead of 2.6. That doesn’t seem to exist.

Looking for other hacks (or kludges), I found the kernel module below at

https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/uname-hack-modules-in-kernel-2-6-a-172167/,

which could be adjusted to report a different kernel version:

Toggle snippet (26 lines)

#include <linux/kernel.h>

#include <linux/module.h>

#include <linux/utsname.h>

#ifndef UNAME_DUMB_STEPPING

#define UNAME_DUMB_STEPPING '5';

#endif

MODULE_AUTHOR("The one who invented the uname hack");

MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Changes the uname output");

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");

static int uname_hack_init() {

save = system_utsname.machine[1];

system_utsname.machine[1] = UNAME_DUMB_STEPPING;

return 0;

}

static void uname_hack_cleanup() {

system_utsname.machine[1] = save;

}

module_init(uname_hack_init);

module_exit(uname_hack_cleanup);

Another option would be to ptrace processes, handle the first ‘uname’

call, and then PTRACE_DETACH. Ugly.

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 26 Feb 2018 07:13

control message for bug #30537

Recipients:(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87a7vvwzq4.fsf@gnu.org

severity 30537 serious

Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 9 Mar 2018 14:19

Recipients:(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:E1euQMI-0003EH-OW@debbugs.gnu.org

tags 30537 fixed

close 30537

Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 30537@patchwise.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it

mumi current 30537

Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)

mumi am -- -s

Or, compose a reply to this issue

mumi compose

Or, send patches to this issue

mumi send-email *.patch

is:open	open issues
is:done	closed issues
submitter:<who>	search issue submitter
author:<who>	search by message author
date:yesterday..now	search by issue date
mdate:3m..2d	search by message date