On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:27:29AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > Do you think the above analysis makes sense? The bug linked earlier on has a > > gdb backtrace for those interested. Any other pointers that might help us > > troubleshoot this would be appreciated. > > When this came up in: > http://marc.info/?t=137192124100002&r=1&w=2 > the solution was to add a trigger to the selinux-policy package to > always rebuild the policy (which includes regenerating the .bin file) on > pcre upgrades. > > Are you not doing that in Gentoo? Not yet, we're exploring our options. I was hoping the previous time was a one-off, but apparently it's not. > The issue came up again in the context of cross-compiling in: > http://marc.info/?t=139275881100002&r=1&w=2 > and there was a willingness to add a version but I don't think anyone > proposed a patch to do so. But even with the version, using the PCRE > version effectively just means that you'll need to regenerate on each > new library version anyway, right? So what do we gain versus the > current approach of regenerating on pcre updates? There's a small period between the pcre upgrade and the selinux-policy update in which we'll get these failures again (and in Gentoo, the installation of selinux-policy will fail because a relabeling operation on the files would occur which will segfault - but that's something we need to tackle in Gentoo). Wkr, Sven Vermeulen _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
