[Rpm-maint] [PATCH 3/4] Add sepdebugcrcfix to fixup old style gnu_debuglink CRC checksum.

Thierry Vignaud thierry.vignaud at gmail.com
Tue Jun 7 08:33:26 UTC 2016

On 6 June 2016 at 23:00, Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat.com> wrote:
> Some old tools might still use the .gnu_debuglink section to find
> separate debuginfo files instead of build-id style lookups. When
> dwz has compresses the .debug files the original CRC in the main
> ELF file will no longer match. Make sure to run sepdebugcrcfix
> after dwz to recalculate the CRC.
> The original fix was created by Jan Kratochvil based on code
> from GNU binutils BFD. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971119
> I added a testcase to make sure the CRCs were all correctly
> updated after dwz has run to compress a debuginfo package.

WARNING: Note that the original Fedora patch has issues!
Panu (the then upstream rpm.org maintainer) said it should _not_ be
upstreamed when we bring the issue up:

Once we applied this patch to rpm-4.12 in Mageia, rpm silently dropped
the suid/sgid bits from files if they were re not explicitely listed with %attr
This was breaking packages...
See https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14691

We tracked it down to:
("fix .gnu_debuglink CRC32 after dwz (rhbz#971119)")

See https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14691#c4

Panu answered:

====================== BEGIN
As for the "are you sure we (still) need this patch" question, the
answer has always been "almost certainly not".

The short summary is that the issue it fixes only is present if you
use dwz to compress the debuginfo (like Fedora does), and even then
case it only affects a handful of toolchain developers in the entire

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971119 for further
explanation of the issue, comment #9 answers the who is affected part.

Personally my opinion is "just kick out the stupid patch already" :)
but judge for yourselves.
====================== END

Florian, you should still have the details in your mailbox ("rpm
silently loosing suid/sgid bits" private discussion in 2014
December/2015 February between me, Panu & you)

This shows I should have used the list instead of using private mails :-(

So I would say to _not_ merge this patch.
It should remain in Fedora's rpm, not be upstreamed.

More information about the Rpm-maint mailing list