-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/03/2011 03:32 PM, Piscium wrote: > On 2 May 2011 14:06, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, 1 May 2011 19:29:50 +0100 >> Piscium <groknok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> I like to rebuild a number of Fedora source packages for performance >>> and some tweaking. >>> >>> In the past I have used rpmbuild for that purpose, but this weekend I >>> started using mock. >>> >>> So far I built about a dozen source packages successfully, but then >>> got a SELinux snag when building glibc (I am using the targeted policy >>> on F14). >>> >>> The wiki has instructions on how to set SELinux for mock: >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds#SELinux_policy_module_for_mock >>> >>> I followed the instructions but the result of running Make was >>> different from the expected, there was an error. [1]. >>> >>> My question is if the policy files of the wiki page are current? They >>> are three years old, which is a long time in dog years or Fedora >>> years! >> >> Right. Thats out of date. As far as I know you don't need to do >> anything special anymore. Mock handles it all. >> >> Just run mock out of the box? Does it fail? If so, how? > > I am not sure what you mean by "just" "out of the box". I ran mock > with the "--no-clean" option to save the time to download and install > the whole chroot environment. I did "mock --update" before, and I > changed the default optflags. Other than that it was a pristine > chroot. > > Yesterday I built glibc with rpmbuild (i. e. without mock) and got the > same SELinux alert as with mock. Some months ago on F13 I built glibc > with rpmbuild without an alert, so it seems that something changed > between F13 and F14, possibly in glibc. > > As I said, while glibc self-tests failed, the whole build succeeded, > so yesterday I installed the glibc packages that I built and so far > everything seems fine. > > I am pasting below the alert message I got from SELinux. I kept the > mock build log that shows the failed tests (some of them failed while > testing execstack). If anybody is interested I can upload it somewhere > (I am not sure if I can email to the list, can I?). > > This makes me wonder if the Koji servers that do the Fedora builds > have SELinux enabled? > > ----------------- > > SELinux is preventing > /builddir/build/BUILD/glibc-2.13/build-i686-linuxnptl/elf/ld.so from > using the execstack access on a process. > > ***** Plugin allow_execstack (53.1 confidence) suggests ******************** > > If you believe that > None > should not require execstack > Then you should clear the execstack flag and see if > /builddir/build/BUILD/glibc-2.13/build-i686-linuxnptl/elf/ld.so works > correctly. > Report this as a bug on None. > You can clear the exestack flag by executing: > Do > execstack -c None > > ***** Plugin catchall_boolean (42.6 confidence) suggests ******************* > > If you want to allow unconfined executables to make their stack > executable. This should never, ever be necessary. Probably indicates > a badly coded executable, but could indicate an attack. This > executable should be reported in bugzilla > Then you must tell SELinux about this by enabling the 'allow_execstack' boolean. > Do > setsebool -P allow_execstack 1 > > ***** Plugin catchall (5.76 confidence) suggests *************************** > > If you believe that ld.so should be allowed execstack access on > processes labeled unconfined_t by default. > Then you should report this as a bug. > You can generate a local policy module to allow this access. > Do > allow this access for now by executing: > # grep ld-linux.so.2 /var/log/audit/audit.log | audit2allow -M mypol > # semodule -i mypol.pp > > Additional Information: > Source Context unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1 > 023 > Target Context unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1 > 023 > Target Objects Unknown [ process ] > Source ld-linux.so.2 > Source Path /builddir/build/BUILD/glibc-2.13/build-i686-linuxn > ptl/elf/ld.so > Port <Unknown> > Host d3000 > Source RPM Packages > Target RPM Packages > Policy RPM selinux-policy-3.9.7-40.fc14 > Selinux Enabled True > Policy Type targeted > Enforcing Mode Enforcing > Host Name d3000 > Platform Linux d3000 2.6.35.12-90.fc14.i686 #1 SMP Fri Apr > 22 16:14:44 UTC 2011 i686 i686 > Alert Count 8 > First Seen Sun 01 May 2011 17:38:44 IST > Last Seen Sun 01 May 2011 18:14:25 IST > Local ID df1866d2-1dcb-4bd9-bcc0-88a350597d97 > > Raw Audit Messages > type=AVC msg=audit(1304270065.850:25864): avc: denied { execstack } > for pid=967 comm="ld-linux.so.2" > scontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 > tcontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 > tclass=process > > > type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1304270065.850:25864): arch=i386 > syscall=mprotect per=8 success=no exit=EACCES a0=bf924000 a1=1000 > a2=1000007 a3=bf9248c8 items=0 ppid=966 pid=967 auid=1000 uid=1000 > gid=490 euid=1000 suid=1000 fsuid=1000 egid=490 sgid=490 fsgid=490 > tty=pts2 ses=1 comm=ld-linux.so.2 > exe=/builddir/build/BUILD/glibc-2.13/build-i686-linuxnptl-nosegneg/elf/ld.so > subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null) > > Hash: ld-linux.so.2,unconfined_t,unconfined_t,process,execstack > > audit2allow > > #============= unconfined_t ============== > #!!!! This avc can be allowed using the boolean 'allow_execstack' > > allow unconfined_t self:process execstack; > > audit2allow -R > > #============= unconfined_t ============== > #!!!! This avc can be allowed using the boolean 'allow_execstack' > > allow unconfined_t self:process execstack; You should report this as a bug in gcc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk3AWSIACgkQrlYvE4MpobPFtgCgtbVsy/xSMY791+6Pr1rFhFJd AqMAnifJYUXsx3ki41iU7aGfdFIGg4VR =t/tw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
