Summary: | dev-lang/nqp: has RWX sections | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED) <flameeyes> |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Patrick Lauer <patrick> |
Status: | RESOLVED OBSOLETE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | hardened, perl |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | https://tinderboxlogs.s3.amazonaws.com/tbamd64.excelsior.flameeyes.eu/dev-lang%3Anqp-2012.10%3A20121031-101653.html | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 604346 |
Description
Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED)
![]() nqp-2014.01: * QA Notice: The following files contain writable and executable sections * Files with such sections will not work properly (or at all!) on some * architectures/operating systems. A bug should be filed at * http://bugs.gentoo.org/ to make sure the issue is fixed. * For more information, see http://hardened.gentoo.org/gnu-stack.xml * Please include the following list of files in your report: * Note: Bugs should be filed for the respective maintainers * of the package in question and not hardened@g.o. * RWX --- --- usr/lib64/parrot/6.0.0/dynext/nqp_dyncall_ops.so (In reply to Patrick Lauer from comment #1) > nqp-2014.01: > * RWX --- --- usr/lib64/parrot/6.0.0/dynext/nqp_dyncall_ops.so As a compiler, I wonder if it needs the rwx mappings like JIT. I can try to remove it and see if it works. (In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #2) > (In reply to Patrick Lauer from comment #1) > > nqp-2014.01: > > * RWX --- --- usr/lib64/parrot/6.0.0/dynext/nqp_dyncall_ops.so > > As a compiler, I wonder if it needs the rwx mappings like JIT. I can try to > remove it and see if it works. I reduced the rwx gnu_stack to rw using `fix-gnustack -f nqp_dyncall_ops.so` and then tried running some "not quite perl" through nqp-p. No problems, but my tests may not have been sufficient to trigger something, and the ebuild says: # upstream knows about test fail RESTRICT="test" so I'm not sure what to make of failed tests if I remove the exe stack. Is this still an issue? (In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #4) > Is this still an issue? Let's file a new bug if it still is. |