Regression for Native Library Loading in 11.0.5 on Linux

Marc Streckfuß marc.streckfuss at gmail.com
Wed Feb 12 09:54:13 UTC 2020


Hey David and Martijn,
I've now spent more than a week on the issue, and I am reporting back
because I have a question (as something has changed since java 8) and
because it seems the Maintainers/Packagers at Ubuntu are rather busy and
the topic is to complicated for most others to help me.

Now it seems only libjawt.so is affected, a tiny wrapper around libawt.so.
Historically, it defined itself as libjawt.so with the version
"SUNWprivate_1.1".
This seems gone with java 11 (might be gone with java 9 already), there
is no version _definition_ anymore.
lwjgl2 however was built against java 8's jni, which made the linker put
a SUNWprivate_1.1 dependency in.
Since it works with AdoptOpenJDK and others, I assume if the version
can't be found, it still loads the method (JAWT_GetAWT).

When I now compare the Ubuntu libjawt to the Debian libjawt again, I see
that Debian still has a version need on glibc and thus comes with a
version symbol table.
I _suspect_ that Ubuntu tries to be clever and sees that there is no
version definition, thus it can omit the version tables, which would be
true, if there wasn't someone relying on the version symbols.
If that's a dead end, then the question is, why Debian links against
"__cxa_finalize at GLIBC_2.2.5" and Ubuntu does not, Ubuntu just imports
whatever __cxa_finalize is there.
I suspect that this versioned import is the only reason the versioning
table is kept.

Do you know more about the omission of SUNWprivate_1.1?
Also can you maybe help me, or point me towards someone that can, in
order to fix this issue.
I also don't know where the issue actually is (in glibc when loading?
binutils when linking? specific makefile patches?)

Cheers,
Marc

Am 04.02.20 um 19:53 schrieb Martijn Verburg:
> Hi Marc,
>
> reporting to Ubuntu seems like the correct thing to do here - thanks!.
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 22:16, Marc Streckfuß <marc.streckfuss at gmail.com
> <mailto:marc.streckfuss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hey David and Martijn,
>     I've now done some testing locally with three JDKs and I am afraid
>     this is even more specific: An Ubuntu issue.
>     I think one of our monkeys also said that they had it on
>     Arch-Linux as well, which makes this issue more obscure, but:
>
>     FAILING:
>
>     openjdk version "11.0.6" 2020-01-14
>     OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build
>     11.0.6+10-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu118.04.1)
>     OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build
>     11.0.6+10-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu118.04.1, mixed mode, sharing)
>
>     WORKING:
>
>     openjdk version "11.0.6" 2020-01-14
>     OpenJDK Runtime Environment AdoptOpenJDK (build 11.0.6+10)
>     OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM AdoptOpenJDK (build 11.0.6+10, mixed mode)
>
>     openjdk version "11.0.6" 2020-01-14
>     OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11.0.6+10)
>     OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11.0.6+10, mixed mode)
>
>     Now I also got the second one from AdoptOpenJDK (upstream), but I
>     assume this is a problme specifically from
>     "-post-Ubuntu-1ubuntu118.04.1"
>
>     I guess I should address this directly on launchpad.net
>     <http://launchpad.net>?
>
>     Thanks for your help so far,
>     Marc
>
>     Am 03.02.20 um 03:39 schrieb Martijn Verburg:
>>     Hi Marc,
>>
>>     I’m one of the AdoptOpenJDK representatives. Please to come and
>>     report it to us (openjdk-support repo on our github) sounds like
>>     an issue that a packaging workaround may be able to solve.  If
>>     it’s genuinely a generic openjdk issue we can help triage
>>     regardless ��
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Martijn
>>
>>     On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:46, David Holmes
>>     <david.holmes at oracle.com <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 3/02/2020 10:04 am, Marc Streckfuß wrote:
>>         > Hi David,
>>         > Thanks in Advance for that swift analysis!
>>         >
>>         > Actually I am asking on behalf of jMonkeyEngine, but didn't
>>         see the
>>         > precise post you've outlined.
>>         > The hint that this seems to be related to the build
>>         environment is a
>>         > good one, actually we switched from Oracle 8 to
>>         AdoptOpenJDK 11.0.5, so
>>         > this may come into play.
>>         > My intent for posting here was at least to get some eyes on
>>         the
>>         > situation, as searching the net is mostly a list of
>>         confusing reports
>>         > with the only solution being going back to 8.
>>         >
>>         > I wonder one thing, though: Does the JVM statically link
>>         against glibc?
>>
>>         I'm not sure sorry - the detailed build config is not
>>         something I'm
>>         intimately familiar with. It may be configurable.
>>
>>         > As usually when the glibc is linked in dynamically, there
>>         shouldn't be
>>         > many ways this can trigger a bug, like it depends on the
>>         runtime
>>         > environment and not on the build environment.
>>         > Apart from the suggestions on our forums, did you find some
>>         clear
>>         > statement on the glibc bug? e.g. which version could've
>>         triggered it?
>>
>>         Some of the links I was following were actually for different
>>         failure
>>         modes so drew blanks. This one is interesting though:
>>
>>         https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-7/+bug/1764701
>>
>>         Particularly the last post regarding Ubuntu OpenJDK build versus
>>         AdoptOpenJDK. I can't quite glean exactly where they think
>>         the problem
>>         is though.
>>
>>         > If it really depends on the build environment/JDK
>>         Distribution, we can
>>         > mark this as solved. I'll do some research and report this
>>         to the
>>         > AdoptOpenJDK team and lets see what happens.
>>
>>         It would be really good if someone who can reproduce this can
>>         try with
>>         11.0.4 and 11.0.5 from OS distribution, AdoptOpenJDK build
>>         and Oracle
>>         JDK build.
>>
>>         Cheers,
>>         David
>>         -----
>>
>>         >
>>         > Thanks for your time,
>>         > Marc
>>         >
>>         > Am Mo., 3. Feb. 2020 um 00:18 Uhr schrieb David Holmes
>>         > <david.holmes at oracle.com <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>
>>         <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com
>>         <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>>:
>>         >
>>         >     Hi Marc,
>>         >
>>         >     On 1/02/2020 9:56 pm, Marc Streckfuß wrote:
>>         >      > Dear Sirs or Madams,
>>         >      > Since posting to the Java Bug System is restricted
>>         to OpenJDK
>>         >     Authors, I'm
>>         >      > asking here for help and maybe someone can create a
>>         tracking
>>         >     issue on my
>>         >      > behalf.
>>         >      >
>>         >      > We're seeing a problem where loading the "lwjgl2" (
>>         >      > https://github.com/LWJGL/lwjgl) native dependencies
>>         fails ONLY on
>>         >     Linux and
>>         >      > ONLY on JDK/JVM 11.
>>         >      > I've been told that this only happens on 11.0.5,
>>         11.0.4 should be
>>         >     fine,
>>         >      > however research shows, that this also happens on 11.0.3
>>         >      > https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/532054.
>>         >      >
>>         >      > The issue is:
>>         >      >
>>         >      > Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-lookup.c: 111:
>>         check_match:
>>         >      > Assertion `version->filename == NULL || !
>>         _dl_name_match_p
>>         >      > (version->filename, map)' failed!
>>         >      >
>>         >      > Technically this issue stems from glib, here:
>>         >      >
>>         >   
>>          https://github.com/lattera/glibc/blob/master/elf/dl-lookup.c#L111,
>>         >     but it
>>         >      > has to be somehow related to the way the JVM is
>>         interacting with
>>         >     glibc, as
>>         >      > this behavior wasn't there with Java 8.
>>         >      > I can't really reliable comment on the state for
>>         versions 9, 10
>>         >     and up
>>         >      > until 11.0.4, but 11.0.5 has the problem and 8 doesn't.
>>         >      >
>>         >      > Sorry for the vague information on this one, but
>>         maybe someone
>>         >     has an idea
>>         >      > or could give this a quick look?
>>         >      > I guess if you already have a dev env setup and can
>>         step through
>>         >     with a
>>         >      > debugger, the issue could be trivial.
>>         >
>>         >     I've done a bit of a google search on this problem and
>>         it seems to be a
>>         >     somewhat confused situation. I've seen reports of 8 not
>>         working, but
>>         >     falling back to 8 as fixing it. I've seen 11.0.5 is
>>         broken but 11.0.4
>>         >     works, but someone else said 11.0.4 was fine. I've
>>         followed other
>>         >     reports that indicate this all relates to a glibc bug.
>>         >
>>         >   
>>          https://hub.jmonkeyengine.org/t/solved-jme-does-not-work-at-all-on-modern-java-due-to-a-regression/42112/14
>>         >
>>         >     but also suggests a different solution:
>>         >
>>         >     "you either need openJDK 11.0.4 (not 11.0.5) or lwjgl3
>>         instead of
>>         >     lwjgl2
>>         >     unfortunately."
>>         >
>>         >       From what I can tell from the reports that I have
>>         found is that the
>>         >     problem seems to come and go with OpenJDK builds from
>>         different OpenJDK
>>         >     distributors. I did not see any reports that
>>         conclusively indicated the
>>         >     problem was seen on Oracle JDK. My suspicion is that
>>         whether or not
>>         >     this
>>         >     problem appears depends on how the JDK was built i.e.
>>         which version of
>>         >     glibc it has been linked against. The Oracle JDK
>>         binaries for 11.0.4
>>         >     and
>>         >     11.0.5 seems to have the exact same build environment.
>>         I can't comment
>>         >     on any binaries from other places e.g. AdoptOpenJDK.
>>         This conclusion
>>         >     was
>>         >     also proposed on the jmonkeyengine post above:
>>         >
>>         >     "If they’re right, it’s going to depend on what version
>>         of glibc you
>>         >     jvm
>>         >     is using, and possibly what was present when your
>>         native payload was
>>         >     compiled."
>>         >
>>         >     Not sure what can be done at the OpenJDK end.
>>         >
>>         >     Cheers,
>>         >     David
>>         >
>>         >      > Thanks in Advance,
>>         >      > Marc Streckfuß
>>         >      >
>>         >
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Cheers, Martijn (Sent from Gmail Mobile)
>


More information about the jdk-dev mailing list