On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Laurent Bigonville <bigon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yes we originally added the link for pthread_atfork, but have >> replaced that with a GCC Equivalebt __selinux_atfork. >> >> Laurent, does debian not work without -lpthread? Gcc guys did not >> want to require all apps that use libselinux to compile against >> lpthread. > > I think it's the upgrade from a version of libselinux that was linking > against -lpthread (2.1.13) to a version that doesn't that caused the > problem (well this is my wild uninformed guess). > > The Debian bug > is at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728529 > > This could probably be fixed in debian by rebuilding all the reverse > dependencies of libselinux, but that will also affect Gentoo too (added > Sven in CC), or the downstreams should carry the patch. > > I'm a bit lost with these pthread issues :/ Without linking to libpthread (bugs https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473714 and https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476866) we couldn't build some of the tools that support SELinux (i.e. link with libselinux) whereas, if we disable SELinux support, they do build properly (busybox is the one most often found as it is used for our initramfs building so generally one of the packages that is immediately seen - others might exist like cryptsetup and such). If another fix or approach solves this I'm too fine with this. It is just something I know less about on how to proceed (not my cup of tea, so to speak). Wkr, Sven Vermeulen -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
