I've never had a problem compiling the last 4 versions of openssl, but I 
just tried to compile openssl-0.9.6b with gcc 3.0.1 on glibc 2.1.3 and 
I've had a test failure (resulting in a segfault).  The same tree builds 
fine with egcs 2.91.66 with "-mpentium" and gcc 3.0.1 without "-m" 
anything.  If this is a compiler bug, I'll report it to GNU, but I 
thought I should post it here first.

Many details:

../apps/openssl verify -CApath ../certs ../certs/*.pem
make[1]: *** [test_verify] Segmentation fault (core dumped)
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/Security/openssl-0.9.6b/test'
make: *** [tests] Error 2

I compiled with "-march=athlon -mcpu=athlon" instead of "-m486" 
(replaced in the main Makefile).

The backtrace is (terribly useful):
#0  0x7f840fc0 in ?? ()
#1  0x80ac062 in sk_find ()
#2  0x8510c483 in ?? ()

An strace shows that this happened right after:

personality(PER_LINUX)                  = 0
getpid()                                = 20813
SYS_174(0xd, 0xbfffeba4, 0xbfffeb18, 0x8, 0xd) = 0
getpid()                                = 20813
brk(0)                                  = 0x813cb24
brk(0x813cb9c)                          = 0x813cb9c
[...]
brk(0x8145000)                          = 0x8145000
open("/usr/local/ssl/openssl.cnf", O_RDONLY) = 3
recvmsg(3, Segmentation fault (core dumped)

ltrace is a bit more useful:

fprintf(0x40114960, "%s: ", "../certs/ICE-CA.pem") = 21
malloc(96)                                        = 0x08145ef0
memset(0x08145ef0, '\000', 96)                    = 0x08145ef0
malloc(20)                                        = 0x08145f58
malloc(16)                                        = 0x08145f70
bsearch(0x080cfb55, 0x8510c483, 0x28244489, 4, 0x7f840fc0 <unfinished ...>

-- 
Michael T. Babcock
CTO, FibreSpeed Ltd.


______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List                    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to