[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] 204-205 Spec file fixes

On 11/27/2013 02:50 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 11/27/2013 02:26 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:

the attached patches fix <https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4010>.

This fixes points 2) & 3) in the ticket; point 1) is not applicable; 4) are false positives.

The checks mentioned in the ticket pass.

$ hardening-check --color --verbose /usr/libexec/ipa-otpd
 Position Independent Executable: yes
 Stack protected: yes
 Fortify Source functions: yes (some protected functions found)
        unprotected: gethostname
        unprotected: read
        protected: vfprintf
        protected: asprintf
        protected: memcpy
        protected: fprintf
 Read-only relocations: yes
 Immediate binding: yes
pviktori vm-183:~/freeipa{master}16e60f7$ readelf -d /usr/libexec/ipa-otpd | grep BIND_NOW
 0x0000000000000018 (BIND_NOW)
pviktori vm-183:~/freeipa{master}16e60f7$ readelf -h /usr/libexec/ipa-otpd | grep Type
  Type:                              DYN (Shared object file)

(Note, redhat-rpm-config is part of Fedora's minimal build environment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2)


Do we want to define

+%if (0%{?fedora} > 15 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7)
+%define _hardened_build 1

globally? Wouldn't it trigger the hardening also for all our C utilities or
internal SLAPI plugins? Wouldn't it have performance implication for the SLAPI

I am not sure, I would like to hear what the experts say.


On 11/27/2013 03:37 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:> I'm sorry, I removed Martin's e-mail by accident so I'll reply here. I
> think defining the hardened build globally is fine, the only performance
> impact is during startup and only small.
> AFAIR, the C utilities in IPA are mostly daemons and you really want to
> have full RELRO enabled there.
> The only gotcha we found so far (well, Nalin did) was that SELinux was
> not happy with full RELRO on some exotic architectures, like s390x

Is that a SELinux bug? Should we care about it?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]