From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id AkI/HokxrmktAh4AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 08 Mar 2026 22:33:45 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=HsLA8xm1; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 559FB1E0DD; Sun, 08 Mar 2026 22:33:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from vm01.sourceware.org (vm01.sourceware.org [38.145.34.32]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21A51E08D for ; Sun, 08 Mar 2026 22:33:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vm01.sourceware.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7321E4BA23CB for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 02:33:42 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7321E4BA23CB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1773023622; bh=CW83YPeIfORs4l42i5hYiW4WHRQH1kJ8KAQ3Q74YtyQ=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=HsLA8xm1JKI5SpvJzub37JcZQj7ZAhoKZ+Q6kC2T5Cbc+PgA2IIp5eiQPa8ughk+4 Bnh2mhw/8/gARG0tZAYQtcozJQswMYTcqERQ9hrIqZEpdt6PJhi9FooS96bmBS6CY4 S5ClJNFfC7I5+6B9NoSoErhO1C6nD6hlEiiSQXyI= Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56B534BA2E0E for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2026 02:33:01 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 56B534BA2E0E ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 56B534BA2E0E ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1773023581; cv=none; b=SoBmjpsl0HpFb5JPanIUg77puI0yt36/ZV9kcnJSs70eF26DloPHW/prLgh9C7DnRRkZGNCYmIh+gE8TnF2IoKKLrR5yTLuT1lW6EycZh5C4sKd9AS/22BBXvzpO6d6/jxJjE1sCbEhLfbbdPxICidMYJ3AsV61AJYH9bQ3pvQ0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1773023581; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qxEgg3wa7zMvSrJ1Jg2STKgXuIg750V6WY0AdnD3J/Y=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=w/g+EkJ3+I/ZKksyd3z3rbSDpo8MoZ2nbWuATQIPEyZduBzthiVZHezjrWk7Sz1tYINMG8MffQVSDfy9+UsnmPtHQeZsC3YgpU45pkuI37VuRQ8VrsyQCWmVHGOhAlxuXi+7mbjVCQ7R4mZWci/O8X5u1kJYoJsQ2YGYjA7OdNo= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 56B534BA2E0E Received: by simark.ca (Postfix) id 8CDC91E08D; Sun, 08 Mar 2026 22:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8c514818-14bd-462d-8aed-0c323327acae@simark.ca> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2026 22:32:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Does gdb debuginfod download libc etc.? To: psmith@gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Arsen_Arsenovi=C4=87?= Cc: gdb@sourceware.org References: <86wlzmfyep.fsf@aarsen.me> <4844fe241f5524951dc68a6ce05e450897342034.camel@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <4844fe241f5524951dc68a6ce05e450897342034.camel@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On 2026-03-08 17:04, Paul Smith via Gdb wrote: > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_bfd_suffix: enter > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_debug_bfd_1: Trying > /lib/debug/.build-id/f8/7c1d8cd2118209ef2350b22b187a64d705d6cd... > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_debug_bfd_1: path doesn't exist > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_debug_bfd_1: no suitable file found > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_bfd_suffix: exit > debuginfod_find_executable f87c1d8cd2118209ef2350b22b187a64d705d6cd > server urls "http://debuginfod:8002" > checking build-id > checking cache dir /home/pds/.cache/debuginfod_client > found > /home/pds/.cache/debuginfod_client/f87c1d8cd2118209ef2350b22b187a64d705 > d6cd/hdr-executable (bytes=55) > found > /home/pds/.cache/debuginfod_client/f87c1d8cd2118209ef2350b22b187a64d705 > d6cd/executable (fd=14) > Reading symbols from > /home/pds/.cache/debuginfod_client/f87c1d8cd2118209ef2350b22b187a64d705 > d6cd/executable... > > ⚠️ warning: platform-specific solib_create_inferior_hook did not load > initial shared libraries. > > ⚠️ warning: .dynamic section for "/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2" is not > at the expected address (wrong library or version mismatch?) > > ⚠️ warning: Could not load shared library symbols for 9 libraries, e.g. > /opt/lib64/libicui18n.so.75. > Use the "info sharedlibrary" command to see the complete listing. > Do you need "set solib-search-path" or "set sysroot"? > Reading symbols from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2... > [separate-debug-file] find_separate_debug_file_by_buildid: start: > looking for separate debug info (build-id) for /lib64/ld-linux-x86- > 64.so.2 > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_bfd_suffix: enter > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_debug_bfd_1: Trying > /lib/debug/.build-id/8c/fa19934886748ff4603da8aa8fdb0c2402b8cf.debug... > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_debug_bfd_1: path doesn't exist > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_debug_bfd_1: no suitable file > found > [separate-debug-file] build_id_to_bfd_suffix: exit > [separate-debug-file] find_separate_debug_file_by_buildid: end: looking > for separate debug info (build-id) for /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > debuginfod_find_debuginfo 8cfa19934886748ff4603da8aa8fdb0c2402b8cf > server urls "http://debuginfod:8002" > checking build-id > checking cache dir /home/pds/.cache/debuginfod_client > not found No such file or directory (err=-2) > (No debugging symbols found in /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) I noticed a difference between the first debuginfod call (which succeeds) and the second one (that fails). The first one is debuginfod_find_executable and the second is debuginfod_find_debuginfo. Could it be important? Are you able to replicate those queries using the debuginfod-find CLI tool? This is equivalent to the first query, I would expect it to work: debuginfod-find executable f87c1d8cd2118209ef2350b22b187a64d705d6cd And this is equivalent to the second query, I would expect it to fail: debuginfod-find debuginfo 8cfa19934886748ff4603da8aa8fdb0c2402b8cf It would then be interesting to see if you are able to fetch the second one using (assuming debuginfod really has it): debuginfo-find executable 8cfa19934886748ff4603da8aa8fdb0c2402b8cf Here is the documentation from the debuginfod man page for these two requests: /buildid/BUILDID/debuginfo If the given buildid is known to the server, this request will result in a binary object that contains the customary .*debug_* sections. This may be a split debuginfo file as created by strip, or it may be an original unstripped executable. /buildid/BUILDID/executable If the given buildid is known to the server, this request will result in a binary object that contains the normal executable segments. This may be a executable stripped by strip, or it may be an original unstripped executable. ET_DYN shared li‐ braries are considered to be a type of executable. I'm thinking that your ld-linux library might not have debug info (the .debug_* sections), so it might not be returned by the debuginfo request, but it could be returned by the executable request. Even if it does not have debug info, it would still be valuable for GDB to have it. > I wonder if it has something to do with this: > >> ⚠️ warning: platform-specific solib_create_inferior_hook did not load >> initial shared libraries. GDB still ends up listing the shared libs, so it might be red herring. It is still curious though. What OS are you on (I want to know which of the solib-*.c implementations you are using)? Simon