You are not logged in.

#1 2020-05-16 00:38:00

liewkj
Member
Registered: 2019-07-08
Posts: 146

[Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

The recent update of binutils 2.34-3 includes process tracing facility that I believe can only be used when a debugger such as GDB was also installed.

/usr/bin/gdbserver
/usr/lib/libinproctrace.so

These 2 files was not part of binutils until the recent update. I think they should be part of GDB package. PKGBUILD changelog had failed to mention the new inclusion if such is intended.

Last edited by liewkj (2020-05-22 21:41:55)

Offline

#2 2020-05-16 01:23:35

fukawi2
Administrator
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 5,906
Website

Re: [Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

Most developers do not read the forums (frequently). This would be better as a bug report as you'll get input from the people involved.

Offline

#3 2020-05-16 01:48:01

Scimmia
Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 7,620

Re: [Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

Part of the GDB package? Packaging doesn't work that way.

What's the issue with having those two files installed?

Offline

#4 2020-05-16 02:09:59

loqs
Member
Registered: 2014-03-06
Posts: 10,644

Re: [Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

Adding --disable-gdb-server to the top level configure invocation prevents gdbserver and libinproctrace.so from being produced.
As Scimmia notes they could not be added to the gdb package unless the gdb package becomes a split package of binutils built from binutils-gdb.git

Offline

#5 2020-05-16 21:00:13

liewkj
Member
Registered: 2019-07-08
Posts: 146

Re: [Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

It is OK if those 2 files are not included in GDB package. Perhaps they could be made into another separate package for GDB as opt-dependency. I am just skeptical when those 2 were included without changelog documenting it. People who know and actually use GDB would have no issue obtaining those extra 2 files for additional tracing capabilities.

Offline

#6 2020-05-16 21:46:19

progandy
Member
Registered: 2012-05-17
Posts: 3,750

Re: [Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

loqs wrote:

Adding --disable-gdb-server to the top level configure invocation prevents gdbserver and libinproctrace.so from being produced.
As Scimmia notes they could not be added to the gdb package unless the gdb package becomes a split package of binutils built from binutils-gdb.git

libinproctrace.so and gdbserver have been explicitly removed from the gdb package to avoid conflicts with binutils. I do not know why the maintainer chose do this instead of disabling them in binutils.

https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/pack … 0b5a61f11e

Last edited by progandy (2020-05-16 21:48:51)


| alias CUTF='LANG=en_XX.UTF-8@POSIX ' |

Offline

#7 2020-05-17 09:05:00

liewkj
Member
Registered: 2019-07-08
Posts: 146

Re: [Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

High severity bug filed https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/66682

Offline

#8 2020-05-17 09:16:40

WorMzy
Forum Moderator
From: Scotland
Registered: 2010-06-16
Posts: 9,708
Website

Re: [Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

I suspect this is related to debuginfod. gdb 9.2 will have debuginfod support merged, whereas binutils already has it: https://sourceware.org/elfutils/Debuginfod.html


Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI X299 TOMAHAWK ARCTIC // Processor: Intel Core i7-7820X 3.6GHz // GFX: nVidia GeForce GTX 970 // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 5x 1TB HDD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD

Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.

Offline

#9 2020-05-21 05:35:48

liewkj
Member
Registered: 2019-07-08
Posts: 146

Re: [Solved] binutils: Should not include process tracing facility

Scimmia wrote:

Part of the GDB package? Packaging doesn't work that way.

What's the issue with having those two files installed?

1st, for the simple reason that they won't be used unless GDB is also installed. I don't know if libinproctrace.so is also used by other bugcheck or exception report collecting type of tools/daemons.

2nd, having both installed for system not intended for GDB use cases poses a serious security threat if the system was compromised since gdbserver can listen to remote ports and perform data mining and code injection. Well, you can argue that this is a *BIG IF*, but overall the system is comparatively safer without them installed for systems not intended for GDB use cases.

3rd, @logs pointed out that binutils can be built without gdbserver with --disable-gdb-server and why this was not the case for typical binutils. Modern GDB built from binutils-gdb will always produce GDB with those 2 files and @progandy pointed out that those 2 files have always been part of GDB until this recent change that included them as part of binutils.

So what's the issue of keeping the status quo that those 2 files should be part of GDB instead of binutils?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB