On 17/11/10 10:20, drago01 wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:17 AM, nodata<lsof@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 17/11/10 08:57, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> For those who do not know it yet, recent Fedora glibc updates include >>> an optimized memcpy (which gets used on some processors) which breaks the >>> 64 bit adobe flash plugin. >>> >>> The problem has been analyzed and is known, as well as a fix for it, see: >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638477 >>> >>> The problem still exists however. The glibc developers say that this is >>> not a glibc bug, but a flash plugin bug. And technically they are 100% >>> correct, and the adobe flash plugin is a buggy .... (no surprise there). >>> To be specific the flash plugin is doing overlapping memcpy-s which is >>> clearly not how memcpy is supposed to be used. But the way the flash >>> plugin does overlapping memcpy's happens to work fine as long as one as >>> the c library does the memcpy-s in forward direction. And the new memcpy >>> implementation does the memcpy in backward direction. >>> >>> The glibc developers being technically 100% correct is not helping our >>> end users in this case though. So we (The Fedora project) need to come up >>> with a solution to help our end users, many of whom want to use the adobe >>> flash plugin. >>> >>> This solution could be reverting the problem causing glibc change, or >>> maybe changing it to do forward memcpy's while still using the new SSE >>> instructions, or something more specific to the flash plugin, as long >>> as it will automatically fix things with a yum upgrade without requiring >>> any further user intervention. >>> >>> I would also like to point out that if this were to happen in Ubuntu >>> which we sometimes look at jealously for getting more attention / users >>> then us, the glibc change would likely be reverted immediately, as that >>> is the right thing to do from an end user pov. >>> >>> I've filed a ticket for FESCo to look into this, as I believe this >>> makes us look really bad, and the glibc maintainers do not seem to be >>> willing to fix it without some sort of intervention: >>> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/501 >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Hans >> >> Is someone talking to Adobe about this? > > Yes, see https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FP-5739 Adobe benefits from Flash in Linux. So it seems sensible to: 1. Get Adobe to commit to a fix soon WITH A $DATE 2. Agree to patch the change until $DATE 3. Adobe updates Flash, we revert the patch, everyone is happy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
