Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.devel > #117871 > unrolled thread

Re: Bug#1109119: upgrade-reports: systemctl occasionally fails loading libcrypto.so

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.devel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Bug#1109119: upgrade-reports: systemctl occasionally fails loading libcrypto.so Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com> - 2025-07-12 00:10 +0200
    Re: Bug#1109119: upgrade-reports: systemctl occasionally fails  loading libcrypto.so Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2025-07-12 00:40 +0200
      Bug#1109119: upgrade-reports: systemctl occasionally fails loading libcrypto.so Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> - 2025-07-15 00:30 +0200
        Bug#1109119: upgrade-reports: systemctl occasionally fails loading libcrypto.so Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2025-07-24 02:50 +0200
          Bug#1109119: upgrade-reports: systemctl occasionally fails loading libcrypto.so Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2025-07-27 15:40 +0200

#117871 — Re: Bug#1109119: upgrade-reports: systemctl occasionally fails loading libcrypto.so

Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> writes:

> while working on a bookworm -> trixie upgrade failure, I noticed a strange line 
> showing up.
>
> | Preparing to unpack .../openssh-server_1%3a10.0p1-5_amd64.deb ...
> | systemctl: error while loading shared libraries: libcrypto.so.3: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

> deb-systemd-invoke is part of init-system-helpers and therefore 
> essential. It calls out to systemctl, which is not essential but for all 
> practical matters we really should be treating it as if it was and 
> maintainer scripts expect it to work at all times.

> In practice, this means that systemctl cannot be expected to work in 
> maintainer scripts.

forgive the stupid question: does this mean there is a wider risk that
this might affect other packages?  "systemctl is de-facto essential but
not marked as such" sounds quite dangerous


> We typically reboot after a dist upgrade (at least that's what release
> notes strongly recommend)

(surprisingly, the release-notes actually dont remind anyone to reboot
explicitly - there is only an implicit statement in
https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes/issues.en.html#things-to-do-before-rebooting

probably that should be improved regardless of this)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#117873 — Re: Bug#1109119: upgrade-reports: systemctl occasionally fails loading libcrypto.so

* Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com> [250712 00:04]:
>Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> writes:
>
>> while working on a bookworm -> trixie upgrade failure, I noticed a strange line
>> showing up.
>>
>> | Preparing to unpack .../openssh-server_1%3a10.0p1-5_amd64.deb ...
>> | systemctl: error while loading shared libraries: libcrypto.so.3: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
>
>> deb-systemd-invoke is part of init-system-helpers and therefore
>> essential. It calls out to systemctl, which is not essential but for all
>> practical matters we really should be treating it as if it was and
>> maintainer scripts expect it to work at all times.
>
>> In practice, this means that systemctl cannot be expected to work in
>> maintainer scripts.
>
>forgive the stupid question: does this mean there is a wider risk that
>this might affect other packages?

Yes.

>"systemctl is de-facto essential but not marked as such" sounds quite dangerous

Not really. You can consider it pseudo-essential on a lot of 
systems, but certainly not all.

It would certainly suck if the common case was broken. The package 
containing systemctl not being marked Essential: yes is however, 
correct.

I was somewhat hoping this is caused by the existing upgrade issue 
which Helmut is working on AFAIU. Was it proven that this is not the 
same problem?

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117911

Hi Chris,

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 12:36:20AM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> I was somewhat hoping this is caused by the existing upgrade issue which
> Helmut is working on AFAIU. Was it proven that this is not the same problem?

I believe this is independent and I merely caught it as I was carefully 
reading test results for your other issue. This particular one is solely 
caused by libssl3 having done a t64 transition when it was not 
appropriate to do so. I do not expect my proposed change to glibc to 
improve the situation regarding systemctl.

Helmut

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118077

On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 10:29:25AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 12:36:20AM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > I was somewhat hoping this is caused by the existing upgrade issue which
> > Helmut is working on AFAIU. Was it proven that this is not the same problem?
> 
> I believe this is independent and I merely caught it as I was carefully 
> reading test results for your other issue. This particular one is solely 
> caused by libssl3 having done a t64 transition when it was not 
> appropriate to do so. I do not expect my proposed change to glibc to 
> improve the situation regarding systemctl.

Is this problem still happening?

If so, are there any ideas on what to do about it?

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#118117

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 02:43:27AM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 10:29:25AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> > 
> > On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 12:36:20AM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > > I was somewhat hoping this is caused by the existing upgrade issue which
> > > Helmut is working on AFAIU. Was it proven that this is not the same problem?
> > 
> > I believe this is independent and I merely caught it as I was carefully 
> > reading test results for your other issue. This particular one is solely 
> > caused by libssl3 having done a t64 transition when it was not 
> > appropriate to do so. I do not expect my proposed change to glibc to 
> > improve the situation regarding systemctl.
> 
> Is this problem still happening?

Maybe a better question to ask would have been: is there a known 
reproducer for this?

Given there were unclear reasons for the deconfigure/unpack order of 
libssl3(t64), I do wonder if other changes in the archive might 
have improved the situation.

Best,
Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel

csiph-web