https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910 --- Comment #8 from Dave Love <dave.love@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7) > - libblas* libraries are not hardened: > > $ checksec --file libblas.so.3 > RELRO STACK CANARY NX PIE RPATH > RUNPATH FORTIFY Fortified Fortifiable FILE > Partial RELRO No canary found NX enabled DSO No RPATH > No RUNPATH No 0 0 libblas.so.3 Do you know how to change that? Linking with %build_ldflags doesn't affect that result. I assume it doesn't make any real difference for the shims. > - These packages provide same blas* libraries: > > $ repoquery --whatprovides libblas.so.* > Last metadata expiration check: 2:17:11 ago on sab 22 set 2018 12:57:31 CEST. > blas-0:3.8.0-8.fc28.i686 > blas-0:3.8.0-8.fc28.x86_64 > blas-0:3.8.0-9.fc28.i686 > blas-0:3.8.0-9.fc28.x86_64 > > Must be filtered, i guess. Sorry, I don't know what that's getting at. Could you explain? (It's arguable clear how the libblas shims should be handled, especially as either openblas of blis might win in different circumstances.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
