Le 12/11/2017 à 07:56, Thomas Huth a écrit : > Am Fri, 10 Nov 2017 20:49:35 +0100 > schrieb Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu>: > >> I have this error: >> bash: /sbin/ldconfig: cannot execute binary file: Exec format error >> >> because /sbin/ldconfig is: >> ELF 64-bit MSB executable, IBM S/390, version 1 (GNU/Linux), >> statically linked, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, >> BuildID[sha1]=90b64604014aafac9c1a0623b1cf447281d1a382, stripped >> >> OS ABI is GNU/linux >> >> "/bin/ls" works well: >> >> ELF 64-bit MSB shared object, IBM S/390, version 1 (SYSV), >> dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld64.so.1, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, >> BuildID[sha1]=be9b19143d4657678846f6e5277383071fc1059a, stripped >> >> OS ABI is SYSV >> >> To be able to execute ldconfig, this patch modifies s390x binfmt mask >> to ignore the OS ABI value (EI_OSABI, byte 7). >> >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> >> --- >> scripts/qemu-binfmt-conf.sh | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/scripts/qemu-binfmt-conf.sh b/scripts/qemu-binfmt-conf.sh >> index 8afc3eb5bb..e2e1b7544d 100755 >> --- a/scripts/qemu-binfmt-conf.sh >> +++ b/scripts/qemu-binfmt-conf.sh >> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ >> sh4eb_mask='\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff >> sh4eb_family=sh4 >> >> s390x_magic='\x7fELF\x02\x02\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x02\x00\x16' >> -s390x_mask='\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xfe\xff\xff' >> +s390x_mask='\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\x00\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xfe\xff\xff' > > If I've got that right, the OSABI field should either be 0 for > "No extensions or unspecified" (which is then printed by "file" > as SYSV) or 3 for "GNU/Linux". > Thus wouldn't it be better to use a mask of 0xfc here instead, so > that we refuse at least everything with a value > 3 here? No, because with this mask you allow HPUX and NetBSD (See /usr/include/elf.h), I don't think it's really better. The simplest way to manage this is to ignore the field. A better way should be to have two binfmt entries, one for SYSV and one for GNU/Linux, but as our goal is to run linux binaries on linux system, is it worth it?
Most of the other archs use already 0. > > Also I wonder whether i386 has the same problem, too? > Yes, I think all targets can have the same problem (I have with m68k, but with the gcc-7/cc1 binary). Thanks, Laurent
