Re: Executing a binary file, mode 7, 80386 ELF executable - Questions

This is a discussion on Re: Executing a binary file, mode 7, 80386 ELF executable - Questions ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Vul wrote: > Hi, > > I try to run a program called puma ("./puma"), but I get this: > bash: ./puma: No such file or directory > > With "file puma" I get: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: Executing a binary file, mode 7, 80386 ELF executable

  1. Re: Executing a binary file, mode 7, 80386 ELF executable

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Vul wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I try to run a program called puma ("./puma"), but I get this:
    > bash: ./puma: No such file or directory
    >
    > With "file puma" I get:
    > puma: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
    > dynamically
    > linked (uses shared libs), stripped
    > which looks perfectly ok.


    Look for a missing shared library. That "No such file" message is also issued
    when ld.so can't find a library that the executable needs.

    You should "ldd ./puma" and check for the "not found" libraries. One of them
    is probably critical to puma and causing your problem.


    - --
    Lew Pitcher

    Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | GPG public key available on request
    Registered Linux User #112576 (http://counter.li.org/)
    Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFBPHhXagVFX4UWr64RApZBAJ9JbBPF3KTV1t0uLrrTjx YyD1eAlQCg2Ml2
    wAqqEd3Qw7m7V64KSM/0khQ=
    =TZxh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: Executing a binary file, mode 7, 80386 ELF executable

    Lew Pitcher wrote in message news:...
    >
    > Look for a missing shared library. That "No such file" message is also issued
    > when ld.so can't find a library that the executable needs.
    >
    > You should "ldd ./puma" and check for the "not found" libraries. One of them
    > is probably critical to puma and causing your problem.
    >


    With "ldd ./puma" I still got "No such file or directory". So I tried
    "strings ./puma | grep so" which gave two files:
    /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    lib.so.5

    I found a symlink ld-linux.so.2 to ld-2.2.5.so so I created a symlink
    for the first:
    ln -s /lib/ld-2.2.5.so /lib/ld-linux.so.1

    Next I found lib.so somewhere and copied it to /lib/lib.so . I made a
    symlink too:
    ln -s /lib/lib.so /lib/lib.so.5

    Now "ldd ./puma" gave:
    libc.so.5
    ld-linux.so.1

    I found a symlink libc.so.6, and again I created a similar symlink:
    ln -s /lib/libc-2.2.5.so /lib/libc.so.5

    "ldd -v -r ./puma" now leads to:

    libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5 (0x40024000)
    /lib/ld-linux.so.1 => /lib/ld-linux.so.1 (0x40000000)
    undefined symbol: __libc_init (./puma)
    undefined symbol: _fxstat (./puma)
    undefined symbol: __setfpucw (./puma)

    Version information:
    /lib/libc.so.5:
    ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.1.1) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.2.3) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.1) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.2) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.0) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1


    I found http://lists.debian.org/debian-alpha.../msg00062.html
    saying libc 6.1 should do it. Slackware 9.1 uses glibc 2.3.2
    (http://slackware.com/pb/showdesc.php...c-2.3.2-i486-1)
    (although the "Version information" above makes me a bit nervous). Ths
    should be enough, but somehow it isn't.

    Vul

  3. Re: Executing a binary file, mode 7, 80386 ELF executable

    On 2004-09-06, Vul wrote:
    > With "ldd ./puma" I still got "No such file or directory". So I tried
    > "strings ./puma | grep so" which gave two files:
    > /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    > lib.so.5
    >
    > I found a symlink ld-linux.so.2 to ld-2.2.5.so so I created a symlink
    > for the first:
    > ln -s /lib/ld-2.2.5.so /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    >
    > Next I found lib.so somewhere and copied it to /lib/lib.so . I made a
    > symlink too:
    > ln -s /lib/lib.so /lib/lib.so.5
    >
    > Now "ldd ./puma" gave:
    > libc.so.5
    > ld-linux.so.1
    >
    > I found a symlink libc.so.6, and again I created a similar symlink:
    > ln -s /lib/libc-2.2.5.so /lib/libc.so.5
    >
    > "ldd -v -r ./puma" now leads to:
    >
    > libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5 (0x40024000)
    > /lib/ld-linux.so.1 => /lib/ld-linux.so.1 (0x40000000)
    > undefined symbol: __libc_init (./puma)
    > undefined symbol: _fxstat (./puma)
    > undefined symbol: __setfpucw (./puma)
    >
    > Version information:
    > /lib/libc.so.5:
    > ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.1.1) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    > ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.2.3) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    > ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.1) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    > ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.2) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    > ld-linux.so.2 (GLIBC_2.0) => /lib/ld-linux.so.1
    >
    > I found http://lists.debian.org/debian-alpha.../msg00062.html
    > saying libc 6.1 should do it. Slackware 9.1 uses glibc 2.3.2
    > (http://slackware.com/pb/showdesc.php...c-2.3.2-i486-1)
    > (although the "Version information" above makes me a bit nervous).


    libc5 is a completely different system from libc6 (a.k.a. glibc), so this
    won't work. You need to find and install the obsolete, unsupported libc5
    and its dynamic loader somehow.

    P.S. "debian-alpha" is for Debian on Digital's Alpha chip. Did the alpha
    ever use a libc5?

    --
    Paul Kimoto
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text. Any images,
    hyperlinks, or the like shown here have been added without my consent,
    and may be a violation of international copyright law.

+ Reply to Thread