I'm using eclipse cdt to compile and run C++ application.
My_main_program needs specifically libjpeg.so.62.
My Ubuntu system previously have libjpeg.so.9 at /usr/local/lib/. I happened to compiled and run using libjpeg.so.9 before run-time compatibility errors was raised.
Then I deleted all libjpeg.* and installed libjpeg.la, libjpeg.so, libjpeg.so.62 and libjpeg.so.62.0.0 from source. Then I run ldconfig.
I can build the project. The problem is the dynamic linker keeps searching for libjpeg.so.9 and throwing
'error while loading shared libraries: libjpeg.so.9: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory'
at run-time.
This problem is killing me.
I have checked that the symlink of libjpeg.so is correct.
Please help!
I can build the project. The problem is the dynamic linker keeps searching for libjpeg.so.9 and throwing
'error while loading shared libraries: libjpeg.so.9: ... No such file ...
You need to understand a couple of things:
A shared library may have SONAME dynamic tag (visible with readelf -d foo.so | grep SONAME).
If an executable is linked against such a library, the SONAME is recorded as a NEEDED dynamic tag (in the executable), regardless of what the library itself is called. That is, you can name the library foo.so, foo.so.1234, or anything else. IF the library has SONAME of libbar.so.7, then the executable will require libbar.so.7, no matter what [1].
On to your problem. Your executable fails to load libjpeg.so.9, therefor we conclude that it is being linked (at build time) with a shared library which has SONAME: libjpeg.so.9.
I deleted all libjpeg.* and installed libjpeg.so.62
You must not have deleted the libjpeg.so that is used at executable build time (which is somewhere other than /usr/local/lib). That library still has SONAME: libjpeg.so.9, and is causing you grief.
You can find out which libraries are being used at link time by passing -Wl,-t flag on the link line.
[1] Not strictly true: if the executable doesn't need any symbols from foo.so, and if --as-needed linker option is in effect, then NEEDED: libbar.so.7 will not be recorded after all.
Update:
I have also check ldd executable and it returns libjpeg.so.62
This means that the executable that you run ldd on is correct, but the executable that actually run is not, and they must be different executables.
Update 2:
You're right. ldd executable shows both libjpeg.so.62 and libjpeg.so.9 are included
Actually, no, I wasn't. But I will be right this time.
What's happening is that your executable correctly records NEEDED: libjpeg.so.62 (you can verify this with the following command: readelf -d /path/to/exe | grep 'NEEDED.*libjpeg').
But you also have some other shared library (one of the ones listed in ldd output), which has not been rebuilt, and still has a dependency on libjpeg.so.9.
You can find that library by running readelf -d /path/to/libXXX.so | grep 'NEEDED.*libjpeg\.so\.9' on all libraries listed in ldd output.
Once you find it, you'll have to rebuild it so it also depends on libjpeg.so.62.
Related
I'm very new to Yesod and I'm having trouble building Yesod statically
so I can deploy to Heroku.
I have changed the default .cabal file to reflect static compilation
if flag(production)
cpp-options: -DPRODUCTION
ghc-options: -Wall -threaded -O2 -static -optl-static
else
ghc-options: -Wall -threaded -O0
And it no longer builds. I get a whole bunch of warnings and then a
slew of undefined references like this:
Linking dist/build/personal-website/personal-website ...
/usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/libHSrts_thr.a(Linker.thr_o): In function
`internal_dlopen':
Linker.c:(.text+0x407): warning: Using 'dlopen' in statically linked
applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc
version used for linking
/usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/unix-2.4.2.0/libHSunix-2.4.2.0.a(HsUnix.o): In
function `__hsunix_getpwent':
HsUnix.c:(.text+0xa1): warning: Using 'getpwent' in statically linked
applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc
version used for linking
/usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/unix-2.4.2.0/libHSunix-2.4.2.0.a(HsUnix.o): In
function `__hsunix_getpwnam_r':
HsUnix.c:(.text+0xb1): warning: Using 'getpwnam_r' in statically
linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the
glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/libpq.a(thread.o): In function `pqGetpwuid':
(.text+0x15): warning: Using 'getpwuid_r' in statically linked
applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc
version used for linking
/usr/lib/libpq.a(ip.o): In function `pg_getaddrinfo_all':
(.text+0x31): warning: Using 'getaddrinfo' in statically linked
applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc
version used for linking
/usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/site-local/network-2.3.0.2/
libHSnetwork-2.3.0.2.a(BSD__63.o): In function `sD3z_info':
(.text+0xe4): warning: Using 'gethostbyname' in statically linked
applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc
version used for linking
/usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/site-local/network-2.3.0.2/
libHSnetwork-2.3.0.2.a(BSD__164.o): In function `sFKc_info':
(.text+0x12d): warning: Using 'getprotobyname' in statically linked
applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc
version used for linking
/usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/site-local/network-2.3.0.2/
libHSnetwork-2.3.0.2.a(BSD__155.o): In function `sFDs_info':
(.text+0x4c): warning: Using 'getservbyname' in statically linked
applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc
version used for linking
/usr/lib/libpq.a(fe-misc.o): In function `pqSocketCheck':
(.text+0xa2d): undefined reference to `SSL_pending'
/usr/lib/libpq.a(fe-secure.o): In function `SSLerrmessage':
(.text+0x31): undefined reference to `ERR_get_error'
/usr/lib/libpq.a(fe-secure.o): In function `SSLerrmessage':
(.text+0x41): undefined reference to `ERR_reason_error_string'
/usr/lib/libpq.a(fe-secure.o): In function `initialize_SSL':
(.text+0x2f8): undefined reference to `SSL_check_private_key'
/usr/lib/libpq.a(fe-secure.o): In function `initialize_SSL':
(.text+0x3c0): undefined reference to `SSL_CTX_load_verify_locations'
(... snip ...)
If I just compile with just -static and without -optl-static
everything builds fine but the application crashes when it tries to
start on Heroku.
2011-12-28T01:20:51+00:00 heroku[web.1]: Starting process with command
`./dist/build/personal-website/personal-website -p 41083`
2011-12-28T01:20:51+00:00 app[web.1]: ./dist/build/personal-website/
personal-website: error while loading shared libraries: libgmp.so.10:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
2011-12-28T01:20:52+00:00 heroku[web.1]: State changed from starting
to crashed
I tried adding libgmp.so.10 to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH as suggested in here
and then got the following error:
2011-12-28T01:31:23+00:00 app[web.1]: ./dist/build/personal-website/
personal-website: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found
(required by ./dist/build/personal-website/personal-website)
2011-12-28T01:31:23+00:00 app[web.1]: ./dist/build/personal-website/
personal-website: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found
(required by /app/dist/build/personal-website/libgmp.so.10)
2011-12-28T01:31:25+00:00 heroku[web.1]: State changed from starting
to crashed
2011-12-28T01:31:25+00:00 heroku[web.1]: Process exited
It seems that the version of libc that I'm compiling against is
different. I tried also adding libc to the batch of libraries the
same way I did for libgmp but this results in a segmentation fault
when the application starts on the Heroku side.
Everything works fine on my PC. I'm running 64bit archlinux with ghc
7.0.3. The blog post on the official Yesod blog looked pretty easy
but I'm stumped at this point. Anyone have any ideas? If there's a way to get this thing working without building statically I'm open to that too.
EDIT
Per Employed Russians answer I did the following to fix this.
First created a new directory lib under the project directory and copied the missing shared libraries into it. You can get this information by running ldd path/to/executable and heroku run ldd path/to/executable and comparing the output.
I then did heroku config:add LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./lib so when the application is started the dynamic linker will look for libraries in the new lib directory.
Finally I created an ubuntu 11.10 virtual machine and built and deployed to Heroku from there, this has an old enough glibc that it works on the Heroku host.
Edit:
I've since written a tutorial on the Yesod wiki
I have no idea what Yesod is, but I know exactly what each of your other errors means.
First, you should not try to link statically. The warning you get is exactly right: if you link statically, and use one of the routines for which you are getting the warning, then you must arrange to run on a system with exactly the same version of libc.so.6 as the one you used at build time.
Contrary to popular belief, static linking produces less, not more, portable executables on Linux.
Your other (static) link errors are caused by missing libopenssl.a at link time.
But let's assume that you are going to go the "sane" route, and use dynamic linking.
For dynamic linking, Linux (and most other UNIXes) support backward compatibility: an old binary continues to work on newer systems. But they don't support forward compatibility (a binary built on a newer system will generally not run on an older one).
But that's what you are trying to do: you built on a system with glibc-2.14 (or newer), and you are running on a system with glibc-2.13 (or older).
The other thing you need to know is that glibc is composed of some 200+ binaries that must all match exactly. Two key binaries are /lib/ld-linux.so and /lib/libc.so.6 (but there are many more: libpthread.so.0, libnsl.so.1, etc. etc). If some of these binaries came from different versions of glibc, you usually get a crash. And that is exactly what you got, when you tried to place your glibc-2.14 libc.so.6 on the LD_LIBRARY_PATH -- it no longer matches the system /lib/ld-linux.
So what are the solutions? There are several possibilities (in increasing difficulty):
You could copy ld-2.14.so (the target of /lib/ld-linux symlink) to the target system, and invoke it explicitly:
/path/to/ld-2.14.so --library-path <whatever> /path/to/your/executable
This generally works, but can confuse an application that looks at argv[0], and breaks for applications that re-exec themselves.
You could build on an older system.
You could use appgcc (this option has disappeared, see this for description of what it used to be).
You could set up a chroot environment matching the target system, and build inside that chroot.
You could build yourself a Linux-to-olderLinux crosscompiler
You have several issues.
You should not build production binaries on bleeding edge distributions. The libraries on the production system will not be forward compatible.
You should not link glibc statically - it will always at runtime try to load additional libraries. For example cpu-based assembly. That is what your first warnings are about.
The last linker errors look like they are related to a missing openssl library on the command line.
But all in all - downgrade your distribution.
I had similar problems launching to Heroku (which uses glibc-2.11) where I had an application that required glibc-2.14, but I did not have access to the source and could not re-build it. I tried many things and nothing worked.
My workaround was to launch the service on Amazon Elastic Beanstalk and just provide an API interface.
I found the information provided useful as well, I think the various descriptions miss a critical issue I also ran into while forcing an updated version of Vagrant to start working again.
It's the dependency references internal to something like complicated installs, like Yesod to Heroku. Those interanl refences need to be preserved.
This is the script I wrote to make problems go away (at least, hopefully, for a little while):
#!/bin/bash
cd $HOME/
GLIBC_VERSION="2.17"
GLIBC_PREFIX="/usr/glibc/"
VAGRANT_VERSION="2.2.19"
# Install the basic build system utilities.
yum groupinstall -y "Development tools"
yum install -y curl patchelf
# Grab the tarball with the GNU libc source code.
curl -Lfo glibc-${GLIBC_VERSION}.tar.gz "https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-${GLIBC_VERSION}.tar.gz"
echo "a3b2086d5414e602b4b3d5a8792213feb3be664ffc1efe783a829818d3fca37a glibc-${GLIBC_VERSION}.tar.gz" | sha256sum -c || exit 1
# Extract the secrets and get ready to rumble.
tar xzvf glibc-${GLIBC_VERSION}.tar.gz
# The configure script requrires an independent build directory.
mkdir -p glibc-build && cd glibc-build
# Configure glibc with a GLIBC_PREFIX so it doesn't conflict with distro libc files..
../glibc-${GLIBC_VERSION}/configure --prefix="${GLIBC_PREFIX}" --libdir="${GLIBC_PREFIX}/lib" \
--libexecdir="${GLIBC_PREFIX}/lib" --enable-multi-arch
# Compile and then install GNU libc.
make -j8 && make install
# Download and install Vagrant.
curl -Lfo vagrant_${VAGRANT_VERSION}_x86_64.rpm "https://releases.hashicorp.com/vagrant/${VAGRANT_VERSION}/vagrant_${VAGRANT_VERSION}_x86_64.rpm"
echo "990e8d2159032915f21c0f1ccdcbca1a394f7937e06e43dc1dabe605d208dc20 vagrant_${VAGRANT_VERSION}_x86_64.rpm" | sha256sum -c || exit 1
yum install -y vagrant_${VAGRANT_VERSION}_x86_64.rpm
# Patch the binaries and shared libraries inside the Vagrant directory, so they use the new version of GNU libc.
(find /opt/vagrant/ -type f -exec file {} \; )| grep "dynamically linked" | awk -F':' '{print $1}' | while read FILE ; do
patchelf --set-rpath /opt/vagrant/embedded/lib:/opt/vagrant/embedded/lib64:/usr/glibc/lib:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib --set-interpreter /usr/glibc/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 "${FILE}"
done
The script should be pretty easy to understand, and adapt easily to whatever MacGuffin you want to make work, provied you understand it.
The only tricky part is the rpath you pass to patchelf. Upi need to make sure you preserve the search paths, and precedence your software requires. Or you end up fixing one problem only to create another equally frustrating roadblock.
P.S. Don't forget the update the hashes for any file you down. In particular, you need to compile/install a different version of GNU libc, you will need to update that hash to match the version you want to use.
A cleaned up version of my compile command looks like gcc -o semantic_seg -Wl,-rpath,... -l:libnvrtc-5e8a26c9.so.10.1 ... and I have a dynamic library file named exactly libnvrtc-5e8a26c9.so.10.1 in the directory specified by the -rpath flag. The command succeeds.
When I go to run my program, it says semantic_seg: error while loading shared libraries: libnvrtc.so.10.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory and when I do ldd it shows libnvrtc.so.10.1 => not found.
So the problem looks like the name of the shared library in the executable is not the same as the filename. Could that be true? Did the 5e8a26c9 part of the name somehow get stripped off?
Update: Creating a symbolic link libnvrtc-5e8a26c9.so.10.1 -> libnvrtc.so.10.1 allows the executable to run. But I'm still not sure the mechanism that causes this name modification to happen. It seems a bit magic.
Could that be true?
This is often true.
On ELF systems, the linker uses SONAME of the library (if it has one) and not its filename to record a runtime dependency.
Running readelf -d libnvrtc-5e8a26c9.so.10.1 | grep SONAME will likely show that in fact that library does have SONAME, and the value of SONAME is libnvrtc.so.10.1.
This used to be very convenient for external library versioning.
Update:
it allows you to link against a library which will be different than the one which will used at run time, but why would I ever want that?
Like I said, it's useful for external library versioning and ABI evolution.
Suppose you ship version 1.0 of libfoo.so. You provide libfoo.so as a symlink to libfoo.so.1, and you use libfoo.so.1 as SONAME.
Any program that links with gcc main.c -lfoo (note: no funny -l:libfoo.so.1 syntax required) will record libfoo.so.1 as its external dependency, and will use that name at runtime.
Time passes, and you are ready to ship version 2, which is not ABI-compatible.
You don't want to cause all your end-users to change their link line, and you don't want to break any existing binaries.
With the SONAME, this is trivial: new package will include libfoo.so.2 with SONAME of libfoo.so.2, and a symlink libfoo.so now pointing to libfoo.so.2.
Voila: both requirements are achieved: existing binaries continue to use libfoo.so.1, newly-linked binaries use libfoo.so.2, no Makefile changes required.
Edit: I resolved this issue, the solution is below.
I am building a code in a shared computing cluster dedicated for scientific computing, thus I can only control files in my home folder. Although I am using fftw as an example, I would like to understand the specific reason, why my attempt to setup LD_LIBRARY_PATH does not work.
I build the fftw and fftw_mpi libraries in my home folder like this
./configure --prefix=$HOME/install/fftw --enable-mpi --enable-shared
make install
It builds fine, but in install/fftw/lib, I find that the freshly built libfftw3_mpi.so links to wrong version of fftw library.
$ ldd libfftw3_mpi.so |grep fftw
libfftw3.so.3 => /usr/lib64/libfftw3.so.3 (0x00007f7df0979000)
If I now try to set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH correctly pointing to this directory, it still prefers the wrong library:
$ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/install/fftw/lib
$ ldd libfftw3_mpi.so |grep fftw
libfftw3.so.3 => /usr/lib64/libfftw3.so.3 (0x00007f32b4794000)
Only if I explicitly use LD_PRELOAD, I can override this behavior. I don't think LD_PRELOAD is a proper solution though.
$ export LD_PRELOAD=$HOME/install/fftw/lib/libfftw3.so.3
$ ldd libfftw3_mpi.so |grep fftw
$HOME/install/fftw/lib/libfftw3.so.3 (0x00007f5ca3d14000)
Here is what I would have expecting, a small test done in Ubuntu desktop, where I installed fftw to /usr/lib first, and then override this search path with LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
$ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=
$ ldd q0test_mpi |grep fftw3
libfftw3.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libfftw3.so.3
$ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/install/fftw-3.3.4/lib
$ ldd q0test_mpi |grep fftw3
libfftw3.so.3 => $HOME/install/fftw-3.3.4/lib/libfftw3.so.3
In short: Why is libfft3_mpi library still finding the wrong dynamic fftw3 library? Where is this searchpath hard coded in a such way that it is prioritized over LD_LIBARY_PATH? Why is this is not the case in another computer?
I am using intel compilers 13.1.2, mkl 11.0.4.183 and openmpi 1.6.2 if this matters.
Edit: Thanks for all the answers. With help of those, we were able to isolate the problem to RPATH, and from there, the cluster support was able to figure out the problem. I accepted the first answer, but both answers were good.
The reason, why this was so hard to figure out, is that we did not know that the compilers were actually wrapper scripts, adding things to compiler command line. Here a part of a reply from the support:
[The] compilation goes through our compiler wrapper. We do RPATH-ing
by default as it helps most users in correctly running their jobs
without loading LD-LIBRARY_PATH etc. However we exclude certain
library paths from default RPATH which includes /lib, /lib64 /proj
/home etc. Earlier the /usr/lib64 was not excluded by mistake
(mostly). Now we have added that path in the exclusion list.
From http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/ld.so.8.html
When resolving shared object dependencies, the dynamic linker first
inspects each dependency string to see if it contains a slash (this
can occur if a shared object pathname containing slashes was
specified at link time). If a slash is found, then the dependency
string is interpreted as a (relative or absolute) pathname, and the
shared object is loaded using that pathname.
If a shared object dependency does not contain a slash, then it is
searched for in the following order:
o (ELF only) Using the directories specified in the DT_RPATH dynamic
section attribute of the binary if present and DT_RUNPATH
attribute does not exist. Use of DT_RPATH is deprecated.
o Using the environment variable LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Except if the
executable is a set-user-ID/set-group-ID binary, in which case it
is ignored.
o (ELF only) Using the directories specified in the DT_RUNPATH
dynamic section attribute of the binary if present.
o From the cache file /etc/ld.so.cache, which contains a compiled
list of candidate shared objects previously found in the augmented
library path. If, however, the binary was linked with the -z
nodeflib linker option, shared objects in the default paths are
skipped. Shared objects installed in hardware capability
directories (see below) are preferred to other shared objects.
o In the default path /lib, and then /usr/lib. (On some 64-bit
archiectures, the default paths for 64-bit shared objects are
/lib64, and then /usr/lib64.) If the binary was linked with the
-z nodeflib linker option, this step is skipped.
with readelf readelf -d libfftw3_mpi.so you can check if your lib contains such a attribute in the dynamic section.
with export LD_DEBUG=libs you can debug the search path used to find your libs
with chrpath -r<new_path> <executable> the rpath can be changed
I see two possible reasons for this.
First, libfftw3_mpi.so may be linked with /usr/lib64/ as RPATH. In that case, providing LD_LIBRARY_PATH will have no effect. To check if it is your case, run readelf -d libfftw3_mpi.so | grep RPATH and see if it has /usr/lib64/ as a library path. If it does, use chrpath utility to change or remove it.
Alternatively, you may be running a system that does not support LD_LIBRARY_PATH at all (like HP-UX).
I have a directory with the following contents:
bin/busybox
lib/ld-linux.so.2
lib/libc.so.6
and when I invoke:
chroot . bin/busybox sh
it fails with the following:
/bin/busybox: error while loading shared libraries: libc.so.6: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
When I move lib/libc.so.6 to usr/lib, it works fine.
Why is libc required to be in /usr/lib? When I invoke:
objcdump -p bin/busybox | grep NEEDED
I get:
NEEDED libc.so.6
So I thought, as only the soname of the library is used without slashes etc. the loaded will be able to find it in the standard folders, which is /lib and /usr/lib. Apparently, this is not the case.
To make matters even more confusing, ld-linux.so.2 seems to have to be in /lib because when it is moved to /usr/lib, chroot fails with:
chroot: failed to run command '/bin/busybox': No such file or directory
which I learned is actually an error that the loader cannot be found, not the busybox binary.
Is the issue with libc.so.2 distro specific? If this is important, I'm using Arch Linux.
The location of the loader (typically something like /lib/ld-linux.so) is hard-coded in the binary. There's no search process for this component — if it cannot be found, the binary won't run at all.
(The exact path depends on what libc and architecture you're using. It's at /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 for glibc on x86_64, for instance.)
The locations that will be searched for dynamic libraries are configurable in /etc/ld.so.conf. If you don't have that file in the chroot, though, some of the standard paths may not be configured!
I'm trying to compile/link a very old piece of software on a linux system and I can't for some reason link with a shared library that's installed on my system.
I get the following error from the linker:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lXaw
However, the lib itself is installed. If I run
ldconfig -v | grep libXaw
I get (among other things) this hit:
libXaw.so.7 -> libXaw7.so.7.0.0
The library and the links to it are in /usr/lib btw. So nothing special.
So the library is there and ldconfig finds it. What could ld cause ld from not finding the library during link-time? As you may have already guessed I'm quite new to the shared library stuff.
Any ideas?
The linker may be looking, literally, for "libXaw.so". Is that in /usr/lib? If not, you could try adding it as another soft link from libXaw7.so.7.0.0.
The reason for the symlink btw is to select the default version to link against in the case of multiple versions, keep in mind the name of the library is integrated into the binary. (which you can see with ldd).
Are the -L library directories being overridden, and it's not looking in /usr/lib?
To link it, you need the .a file, NOT the .so file, which is the runtime library. The shared object is only useful to a program already linked against the non-shared parts of a library. This is typically distributed in a ".a" file.