On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:33:20PM +0200, Gerard Robin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 02:44:31PM -0400, Neil Watson wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Gerard Robin wrote: >>>> First post: >>>>> ldd /bin/bash >>>>> libncurses.so.5 => /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x00002b2d9014f000) >>>>> libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00002b2d9039b000) >>>>> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00002b2d9059f000) >>>>> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00002b2d8ff31000) >>>> >>>> I don't see the last entry in the results of the find command. >>> yes but it's a symbolic link to ld-2.6.1.so: >>> >>> ls -la /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 : >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 2007-08-07 23:08 /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> >>> ld-2.6.1.so* >> >> I doubt the process would know that. It may look for the link name and >> fail if it is not found. Create the link in your jail and try again. > > ok, now I have: > ls -l /f: > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 72 2007-08-20 20:10 bin/ > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 216 2007-08-20 22:07 lib/ > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 2007-08-20 22:00 lib64 -> /f/lib/
Seems to me that symlink target ought to be lib/ or /lib/, since /f/lib/ won't be visible when you chroot to /f/. Ken > ls -l /f/lib: > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121K 2007-08-20 15:50 ld-2.6.1.so* > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 2007-08-20 22:07 ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> > ld-2.6.1.so* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1,4M 2007-08-20 15:50 libc.so.6* > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15K 2007-08-20 15:50 libdl.so.2 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 304K 2007-08-20 15:50 libncurses.so.5 > > and always: > > chroot /f: > chroot: cannot run command `/bin/bash': No such file or directory -- Ken Irving, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
