21

someone i know encountered a problem when running 'lmutil' so i asked them to strace -f lmutil. Why is execve failing with "No such file"!!! It makes no sense, since I am straceing the very same file!! What exactly is going on here???

strace -f /home/tabitha/Starprogram/FLEXlm_11.7/linux-x86_64-2.3.4/bin/lmutil

Output:

execve("/home/tabitha/Starprogram/FLEXlm_11.7/linux-x86_64-2.3.4/bin/lmutil", ["/home/tabitha/Starprogram/FLEXlm"...], [/* 38 vars */]) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
dup(2)                                  = 3
fcntl(3, F_GETFL)                       = 0x8002 (flags O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE)
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0620, st_rdev=makedev(136, 1), ...}) = 0
mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x7fd7cb8b0000
lseek(3, 0, SEEK_CUR)                   = -1 ESPIPE (Illegal seek)
write(3, "strace: exec: No such file or di"..., 40strace: exec: No such file or directory
) = 40
close(3)                                = 0
munmap(0x7fd7cb8b0000, 4096)            = 0
exit_group(1)                           = ?

ldd output

$ ldd ./lmutil
        linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007fffcd5ff000)
        libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007fe40ebbe000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x00007fe40e93b000)
        libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007fe40e724000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00007fe40e3a1000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00007fe40e19d000)
        /lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so.3 => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fe40edf5000)
$ find . -name lmutil -exec file {} \;
./bin.linux.x86_64/lmutil: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, stripped
./bin.linux.x86/lmutil: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.2.5, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.2.5, stripped
./lmutil: Bourne shell script text executable
  • Just to be sure, the `ldd` output is for `…/linux-x86_64-2.3.4/bin/lmutil`, right? What OS is this (for Linux: what distribution), what release, and what architecture? – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mar 09 '11 at 19:21
  • well.. i'm not sure about that and now they are trying with CentOS (Qemu).. The OS was Linux, Ubuntu latest version on AMD (but I'm not absolutely sure) anyway, I told them to check the architecture (32bit vs 64bit, intel/amd/sparc, linux/fbsd) carefully to make sure that wasn't the problem. –  Mar 10 '11 at 03:12
  • Just to make it clear, I only want to know why strace was giving that error (File not found).. don't really care about fixing the user problem (getting lmutil to execute). *** Also IGNORE the "find . -name lmutil -exec file {} \; and the relevant output. Apologies for this! Apparently that command wasn't run by the user. Wish I could edit that out but i don;t know how***** –  Mar 10 '11 at 03:23
  • If you didn't write `lmutil`, this isn't a programming-related question, in which case it's off-topic here and I suggest requesting a migration to [Unix Stack Exchange](http://unix.stackexchange.com/). – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mar 10 '11 at 22:38

6 Answers6

18

The file you're trying to execute (…/lmutil) exists but its “loader” doesn't exist, where

  • the loader of a native executable is its dynamic loader, for example /lib/ld-linux.so.2;
  • the loader of a script is the program mentioned on its shebang line, e.g., /bin/sh if the script begins with #!/bin/sh.

From the name of the directory, there's a good chance that lmutil is an amd64 Linux binary, looking for /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 as its loader, but you have an amd64 Linux kernel running a 386 (i.e. 32-bit) userland. You need to get suitable binaries for your platform.

I consider this situation to be Unix's most misleading error message. Unfortunately fixing it would be hard: the kernel can only report a numeric error code to the caller of the program, so it only has room for “command not found” (ENOENT) and not for the name of the loader it's looking for. This is one of these rare cases where strace doesn't help.

Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
  • 104,111
  • 38
  • 209
  • 254
  • well the libs exist - ldd /whatever/lmutil was okay. It is also a binary file - file /whatever/lmutil. The package was installed by the user on his laptop so it's not a remoteFS. –  Mar 09 '11 at 00:58
  • ignore find . -name lmutil -exec file {} \; (that output wasn't generated by user) it's an error and needs to be edited out. –  Mar 10 '11 at 03:31
  • @paleywiener: And what about `ldd ./lmutil`, was it run on the same executable you're trying to strace? The lack of a loader is the only explanation I can think of for executing an existing file to fail with `ENOENT`, so I'm inclined to cast doubt on that part of the report too. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mar 10 '11 at 08:18
  • @Gilles: you just saved my day! This was exactly my problem (I was trying to run a 32-bits executable on a 64-bits Ubuntu 12.04 installation without realizing it), and just issuing `sudo apt-get install ia32-libs` made the problem go away. – reinierpost Jun 04 '14 at 09:04
  • @reinierpost On Ubuntu 12.04, you can use multiarch, which lets you use more libraries than the old-fashioned ia32-libs way. See https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MultiArch – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Jun 04 '14 at 09:38
  • @Gilles: thanks but I don't see from that page how it lets me handle more libraries, and they say ia32-libs is a transitional package anyway. However I'll bear it in mind if I run into this problem again. – reinierpost Jun 04 '14 at 10:42
  • It would still be useful if the kernel reported missing loader error with something other than ENOENT. – martinkunev Jun 05 '17 at 16:16
6

Your ldd output refers to /lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so.3, but this loader may not actually exist unless (on Ubuntu) you've installed lsb-core package. The postinst script for the package creates the relevant symbolic links in /lib* directories.

  • This solved it for me: the "ldd" output shows "/lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so.3 => /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2" but I didn't have "/lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so.3" on my system (Ubuntu 16.04). Installing the "lsb-core" package created this symlink and then lmutil worked. – sheltond Jun 26 '18 at 10:54
3

Just a bit of speculation, but my first question would be if the user who is having this problem can run the executable by itself without strace.

Also the execve manual page says that ENOENT will occur if either the file or a required script interepreter or shared library cannot be found. (I notice there is 64-bit-ness involved here. Are all the right libraries available?)

Is the file a native executable or could it be a script of some sort?

This looks like a licensing manager - any chance it has made itself intentionally hard to debug?

Speaking of users, is 'tabitha' in whose directory the executable resides the user having the problem? Or are we looking at a possible complication of trying to run a program installed by another ordinary user rather than in a normal system-wide fashion by root?

Chris Stratton
  • 39,853
  • 6
  • 84
  • 117
  • If it can't be run by the OS, strace can't do anything with it either, which is what you are seeing here. You probably need to check read and execute permissions for that user, and then perhaps library issues. – Chris Stratton Mar 10 '11 at 21:36
2

You can use readelf (any readelf should do, you don't need one from a special crosscompiler toolchain) to check which loader is expected by the dynamically loaded or executable.

$ readelf -l <filename> |grep -i interp
...
[Requesting program interpreter: /system/bin/linker]
auselen
  • 27,577
  • 7
  • 73
  • 114
  • +1 for actually providing an actionable way to debug this problem for ELF executables. While technically answering a separate question, it's a very relevant and natural follow-up question. – mtraceur Jun 30 '20 at 21:19
0

From the execve manpage:

On success, execve() does not return, on error -1 is returned, and errno is set appropriately.

strace is assuming that -1 means "file not found" as the errno value ENOENT is -1 and strace doesn't make a distinction.

Essentially, then, you can ignore this: the -1 just means that some error occurred. the strace output doesn't tell you what the value of errno is.

I write this as a warning call to not jump to conclusions with strace and return values, even though it may turn out that errno is ENOENT here anyway.

Lightness Races in Orbit
  • 378,754
  • 76
  • 643
  • 1,055
0

You can see execve return ENOENT . Then search ENOENT in execve man.

The file pathname or a script or ELF interpreter does not exist.

The lmutil file exist, and is a ELF file. So check whether ELF interpreter exist or not. According the man again:

If the executable is a dynamically linked ELF executable, the interpreter named in the PT_INTERP segment is used to load the needed shared objects. This interpreter is typically /lib/ld-linux.so.2 for binaries linked with glibc .

We can find the ELF interpreter path with readelf as @auselen said:

$ readelf -l <filename> |grep -i interp
...
[Requesting program interpreter: /system/bin/linker]

The ELF interpreter should not exist here.

selfboot
  • 1,490
  • 18
  • 23