lame/libxvidcore & execstack
Ted Rule
ejtr at layer3.co.uk
Thu May 4 17:45:04 UTC 2006
Erm. Doesn't that break "rpm -V" file consistency checking?
Shouldn't it rather be done at the end of the rpm SPEC %install phase
during the RPM build rather than during RPM install itself?
Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:10:27 -0400
> From: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: lame/libxvidcore & execstack
> To: fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com
> Message-ID: <4458F213.4040505 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:09:03PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:27:24PM -0400, John Griffiths wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:07:37PM -0400, John Griffiths wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> John Griffiths wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> fedora-selinux-list-request at redhat.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Subject:
> >>>>>>>>> Error running ffmpeg due to permission denied on library
> >>>>>>>>> From:
> >>>>>>>>> "Robert Foster" <rfoster at mountainvisions.com.au>
> >>>>>>>>> Date:
> >>>>>>>>> Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:41:09 +1000
> >>>>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>>>> <fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>>>> <fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get ffmpeg working for Gallery2 on FC5, and
> getting
> >>>>>>>>> the following error (from the debug message via Gallery):
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> I had the same problem when using Kino which also uses
> ffmpeg. Here
> >>>>>>>> is what I did and it works.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> execstack -c /usr/lib/libmp3lame.so.0
> >>>>>>>> execstack -c /usr/lib/libxvidcore.so.4
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please submit bugs on these to Kino and ffmpeg.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually /usr/lib/libmp3lame.so.0 is part of
> lame-3.96.1-10.rhfc5.at
> >>>>>> and libxvidcore4-1.1.0-8.rhfc5.at both from ATRpms.net.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll let the people at ATRpm know.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Is this considered a packaging or upstream issue?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If packaging: What is the recommended way to fix it
> specfile-wise?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> >From this, I find the folks at ATRpms know.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I'm very sure they'll be just as confused as I am ;)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Point them at
> >>
> >
> > ^^^^
> >
> > Them is largely myself, that's why I can tell how confused "they"
> will
> > be. ;)
> >
> >
> >> http://people.redhat.com/~drepper/selinux-mem.html
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nonselsec.pdf
> >>
> >
> > But these reference upstream fixing, not packaging ones. Do idioms
> > exist to cirumvent this at the packaging level (other than fixing
> the
> > source and Patch0: the fix), or is the recommendation to report to
> > upstream and wait for a fix while disabling selinux at the mean
> time?
>
> How about executing
>
> execstack -c /usr/lib/libmp3lame.so.0
>
> execstack -c /usr/lib/libxvidcore.so.4
>
>
> In the postinstall? If it does not break anything.
>
Erm. Doesn't that break "rpm -V" file checking?
Shouldn't it be done at the end of the rpm SPEC %install phase during
the build?
--
Ted Rule
Director, Layer3 Systems Ltd
W: http://www.layer3.co.uk/
More information about the fedora-selinux-list
mailing list