X11R6-R7 Upgrade Problem: elf_load_section: truncated ELF file

Christopher Wojno — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:09:00 -0800

The Problem

I attempted to update X11 from X11R6.7 to X11R7.3 about a month ago. However, I was not successful and after getting this cryptic message when running startxfce4:

elf_load_section: truncated ELF file
Abort

Launching startx yields that same message repeated six times. Oddly enough, launching X worked and also had two truncated ELF files (or the same one repeated). So, X worked, despite the inability to read a few files. I was confounded to say the least.

I spent hours, which lead to days trying to find what ELF file was truncated. Google searches and digging through help forums turned up nothing. I did:

pkg_delete -rx ".*xorg.*" 
pkg_delete -rx ".*font-.*"

(deleted everything xorg and that which depended on it), then reinstalled xorg (/usr/ports/x11/xorg) to no avail. I even updated from FreeBSD-6.1-RELEASE to FreeBSD-6.2-RELEASE.

As of today, I have resolved the problem and I almost lost my mind when I discovered that xinit, a critical component of startx (startx is invoked by startxfce4), was not even installed. Keep in mind, I was getting this error before I deinstalled everything, so I did not deinstall it inadventently and send myself on a wild goose chase.

I assume the port maintainers moved this component out of the xorg port for some reason when they went from X11R6.9 to R7.2. Indeed, the dist file for the port xinit supports that conjecture.

In Summary

Simply INSTALL: /usr/ports/x11/xinit and you’ll be able to use X11 again. You need not deleted everything. Oh, please be sure you updated according to the /usr/ports/UPDATING file’s directions. X11 upgrades have always required special treatment (this one’s no different).

Best of luck to you.

Deleting Files and the DMCA

Christopher Wojno — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:00:00 -0700

Trevor Johns clued me into an article that ran through /. recently concerning coupon fraud. I am not interested in the fraud part of the case, as some people are; rather, I take an interest in the hypothetical decision about the DMCA.

What interests me is, if the DMCA is applicable in this case, what impact will the judge’s decision play on the rest of the United States?

First, can the DMCA be reasonably applied in this case? I have no professional training, but I’ll see what I can swing.

Facts of the case

What are they arguing about? You can pull out a crusty gem: “posting code and instructions…to circumvent copy protection on…coupons¹.” So that’s the legal plot. The digital coupons, which are defensible property with inherent value, are guarded by a mechanism to prevent creating more than a set number of copies by a single user on a single machine.

For the sake of addressing issues before they crop up: No, it does not matter if you have many computers and print off the same coupon from each. No, it does not matter if you have multiple users on a machine and the mechanism operates on a per-user basis (allowing you to create many accounts on the computer and therefore print many coupons off without deleting files or changing registry settings). All of that is irrelevant. What matters are the facts of the case because that is how law in the United States works. Can you make a trade secret argument here? Sure, but that has nothing to do with this case.

To regress, coupons are (and should still be considered today, even if issued digitally) a transference of right to a consumer (or a set of consumers) by the issuing entity. The coupon is merely tangible proof of such transference. The proof is what the entity is trying to protect against copying.

The (not-so) Clever Author

Let’s digress for a moment and enter the world of book publishing. Authors write the books to contain (well… sometimes) information or a (good) story. Publishers print the books and they are distributed to the public for sale. Authors copyright their work (if they’re smart that is) and transfer that right to copy to the publishers, either in part or, more frequently, in whole. Assume that this author is more clever a programmer than a lawyer (didn’t get a Copyright). When attempting to get a publisher for his or her new book, a mechanism is included in the text to frustrate a publisher’s attempt to make more than one copy. Should the book publisher attempt to give the book to someone else to read and deliberately modify it or the environment that mechanism expects to do so, then the publisher may have violated the DMCA. Is it wrong that the publisher will profit from the work of this seemingly clever author? You bet. Is it illegal? Probably. Will the DMCA save the day? Very unlikely. Why?

Bad Media, bad!

To further digress, this is why I dislike the bulk of the news media. This article took a story and developed it only to the point where it entertains readers but does not convey any insightful information. I suppose that is in accord with the media mantra: “report the truth.” It is not the whole truth, but it is elementary fact-finding. I think it is important that this fact-finding (at any level) is done, but I would prefer to see more developed conclusions to these “stories.”

Books and Coupons

To relate the publisher and the coupons: With coupons, the author of the “work” is the issuing entity. It transfers the right to print coupons to the coupon-printing website which, in turn, transfers the right to you to print a coupon. Our author and publisher are in a situation similar to a coupon issuer and a coupon consumer (respectively).

Legal Fun

Back to our not-so-smart author/programmer and his low-down, dirty publisher (not to say that all publishers are low-down and dirty). Why does the DMCA not apply here? Go to the law. Section 1201 of the DMCA states: (emphasis added) “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title².” Here’s an out: will the judge consider registry keys and files as “effective” mechanisms to prevent the copying of those coupons? John Stottlemire (the defendant in the coupon case) and his counsel are banking on not. Observe how obvious the defendant is playing into this section of the DMCA as Kravets quotes him, “All I did was erase files or registry keys. Nothing was hacked. Nothing was decoded that was any way¹.” Brilliant. Translate: Judge, the not-so-smart coupon printer didn’t take enough precautions to protect his right to copy. Judge thinks: well, that wasn’t “effective” now was it?

Saying case-closed is premature. The judge can be clueless (not to say he or she is, I have not met the individual), but it is possible. Now what? The case hinges on that single element. Section 1201.b. includes providing instructions and software (for free or otherwise) about circumventing the hypothetically effectively protected property. Hypothetically, he’s going to jail.

Not convincing enough? Try Section 1202.b “REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION- No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information².” If you read Section 1202.c.7², you’ll see that the registry keys can and will likely be construed as a copyright management information.

The Unlikely Heroes

This doesn’t look good for John Stottlemire (oh and I find it asinine that he’s being associated with DVD John¹ based on shared first names and skiffs with copyright, the talent levels just are not on par). But oh, whoever will save him!? Well. Microsoft could (I know what you’re thinking: Christopher has lost it. Why would Microsoft step in? ). They are not the only ones. Guess what? Your operating system manages files. It also provides a method to delete those files. Oops, your operating system just violated 1202. Oh, they’re not a non-profit educational institution or ISP? They might be liable too!? It’s not my fault your honor! Microsoft let me delete my files and I…sniff... I… Just couldn’t stop!

Long shot? Why? Not-DVD-John here did the same thing: created something to help the public circumvent/alter copyright management information. I could see any file system manufacturer or distributor (which Microsoft definitely is) getting snagged in this. How could they cover themselves against liability? Implement their own copy protection scheme that the operating system manufacturer could sue you for in the event someone else sues them because you cracked the copy-protection scheme. Microsoft already has this well covered, especially in Vista.

How else can you circumvent this hypothetically “effective” management? Reformat/reinstall your disk/operating systm (not regularly feasible, but still possible), employ disk-rollback software (you see this in school libraries, at the end of the day, you start from scratch), or delete random files from your computer (you laugh or are afraid, but I used to do this as a kid to see what would break). Any of these actions will trigger it. Any company or person that provides the means to do so will be liable for DMCA violations.

In light of this, it is unlikely that, even if the judge did think a file is an effective protection method, he would never rule against so many major players.

Not to sound as if you wasted your time (if you learned something, you didn’t), but this entire article is a waste of time, aside from prompting 2 discussions about the applicability of the DMCA. The judge will likely never find it applicable. Not worth mentioning more than once is Not-DVD-John did wrong, but not by the DMCA.

Disclaimer

I am not a lawyer and I have had no professional training in the field of any law. You are responsible for your own actions, always.

¹ Kravets, David. “Coupon Hacker Faces DMCA Lawsuit”. Wired. Aug 20, 2007. Aug 21, 2007. <http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/coupons>.

² “Digital Millennium Copyright Act”. United States Government. House of Representatives. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:>.

Wojno: Tag file