On 31/08/06 08:41 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

...

Unable to load interpreter /lib/ld-linux.so.2

Check for existence of that file and check for mode 755.

...

troubleshooting advice? /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is linked to /lib/ld-2.4.so

And check ld-2.4.so too, if the former is a symlink.

Thanks for your response. That was the first thing I looked at, it seems fine though: craig@pablo:~> ls -l /lib/ld-linux.so.2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2006-06-23 08:38 /lib/ld-linux.so.2 -> ld-2.4.so craig@pablo:~> ls -l /lib/ld-2.4.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 124463 2006-05-26 17:31 /lib/ld-2.4.so craig

On 31/08/06 10:36 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

Can you manually start it, e.g.?

/lib/ld-2.4.so /bin/date

Nope, that fails: craig@pablo:~> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /bin/date /bin/date: error while loading shared libraries: /bin/date: cannot open shared object file: Operation not permitted I can't seem to work out why. Could it be a PATH issue? A missing symlink/package? strace doesn't offer me much more than the error message: craig@pablo:~> strace /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /bin/date execve("/lib/ld-linux.so.2", ["/lib/ld-linux.so.2", "/bin/date"], [/* 71 vars */]) = 0 brk(0) = 0x8001c000 open("/bin/date", O_RDONLY) = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted) writev(2, [{"/bin/date", 9}, {": ", 2}, {"error while loading shared libra"..., 36}, {": ", 2}, {"/bin/date", 9}, {": ", 2}, {"cannot open shared object file", 30}, {": ", 2}, {"Operation not permitted", 23}, {"\n", 1}], 10/bin/date: error while loading shared libraries: /bin/date: cannot open shared object file: Operation not permitted ) = 116 Thanks for your help Craig

On 31/08/06 17:17 +0200, stephan beal wrote:

On Thursday 31 August 2006 11:27, Craig Millar wrote:

...

open("/bin/date", O_RDONLY) ? ? ? ? ? ? = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)

??? Can't read it? That sounds very suspect.

Suspect? Should I be fearing a knock on the door from the authorities? ;-) Do you have any idea why it might be this way?

man 2 open: ... EPERM The O_NOATIME flag was specified, but the effective user ID of the caller did not match the owner of the file and the caller was not privileged (CAP_FOWNER).

Though i don't quite believe that the ATIME is the only reason an EPERM error is signaled.

Assuming this was the case, any idea how I could resolve it? Sorry so many questions, I've been unable to find any other constructive information on this matter. My google-fu has deserted me in my time of need. Thanks, Craig

On 01/09/06 04:48 +0200, stephan beal wrote:

i can't even begin to think of why unless the permissions on your system files have been hosed somehow.

stephan@owl:/lib> l ld-linux.so.2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2006-06-21 14:29 ld-linux.so.2 -> ld-2.4.so stephan@owl:/lib> l ld-2* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 124463 2006-05-07 20:26 ld-2.4.so

Nope. Exactly the same here. md5sum for ld-2.4.so is also identical to my home machine which is working fine.

You can try mounting / with with the 'noatime' option (add it to your /etc/fstab), but i would be surprised if you really need this. It would be a kludgy workaround, at best.

man mount: ... noatime Do not update inode access times on this file system (e.g, for faster access on the news spool to speed up news servers).

The theory being, if EPERM really is caused by the O_NOATIME flag, that turning of atime updates for that filesystem might work around the problem.

This didn't work either, alas.

Aside from that, i'm clueless as to what might cause this.

Makes two of us! Thanks for your time anyways. Best Craig