lame/libxvidcore & execstack

[Axel Thimm]

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?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-selinux-list/attachments/20060502/4748e7d1/attachment.sig>