On 11/12/2017 06:23 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote: > 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?
This was my first thought when I reviewed your patch, this indeed looks cleaner and would be self-explanatory. Regards, Phil.
