Re: gstreamer and selinux issue
by Louis Garcia
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 08:01 -0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 16:31 -0400, Louis Garcia II wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 20:31 -0400, Louis Garcia II wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 18:12 -0400, Louis Garcia II wrote:
> > > > > I was able to setup the pitfdll plugin for gstreamer and use the win32
> > > > > codecs under fc5 with selinux enabled. The pitfdll plugin needed to be
> > > > > marked textrel_shlib_t and the codecs under /usr/lib/win32 marked lib_t.
> > > > > > This worked for FC5 under selinux and FC6 with selinux disabled. But
> > > > > selinux under FC6 seems to have changed. Is their another lable I
> > > > > should use, how can I debug this?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Thanks
> > > >
> > > > This is what I get:
> > > >
> > > > Aug 9 19:12:34 soncomputer kernel: audit(1155165152.723:10): avc:
> > > > denied { execstack } for pid=9530 comm="totem"
> > > > scontext=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t:s0
> > > > tcontext=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t:s0 tclass=process
> > > >
> > > > -Louis
> > >
> > > you can turn on allow_execstack or change the context of totem to
> > unconfined_execmen_exec_t
> > > chcon -t unconfined_execmem_exec_t /usr/bin/totem
> >
> > if I turn on allow_execstack would that be for everything
>
> Yes.
>
> > or just for totem?
> > What would be the most secure of these two options?
>
> Just changing the context type of totem.
>
> Paul.
Ok, I chaged the context type of totem and now it's:
-rwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:unconfined_execmem_exec_t /usr/bin/totem
This seems to fix my problem. However I get a slightly different message now:
Aug 11 15:09:41 soncomputer kernel: audit(1155323379.605:36): avc: denied { execheap } for pid=3094 comm="totem" scontext=user_u:system_r:unconfined_execmem_t:s0 tcontext=user_u:system_r:unconfined_execmem_t:s0 tclass=process
what does it mean?
-Louis
17 years, 5 months
FC6 - Stock x86_64 stock install, installs about 158 i386/686 rpm's
by Chris Stankaitis
Greetings Fedora Dev's
I grabbed fc6-x86_64 and did a stock install (with office/prod selected)
and to my horror the install included about 158 i386/686 RPM's. with a
big massive rpm -e line I was able to take them out. I had i386/686
duplicates for most programs, gaim/firefox/openssl etc...
To the best of my understanding every package for fedora x86_64 should
be included out of the box for x86_64, and that 32bit compatibility
should only be added after the fact if it's required for a 3rd party
apps not maintained by fedora?
I would like to keep my x86_64 box "clean" of 32 bit applications if
possible, and having to rpm -e 100+ of them as my first step of a
post-kickstart is a pain in the butt. has anyone else seen this? I am
willing to help track things down off the list if anyone would like to
investigate this further.
--Chris
17 years, 5 months
xine-lib xine-ui gxine
by Gertjan Vinkesteijn
I have the Subject field programs compiled and working on 64-bits
Fedora6, what shall we do with it?
gertjan@gershwin ~]$ gpg --finger gertjanvinkje
pub 1024D/3FC1E76E 2006-10-29 [expires: 2007-10-29]
Key fingerprint = 4E9F 82A6 8303 0D6E 40CC B41A E52C 22AE 3FC1 E76E
uid GerardJan Vinkesteijn (New! FedDocProj)
<gertjanvinkje(a)yahoo.es>
sub 1024g/BC77793E 2006-10-29 [expires: 2007-10-29]
______________________________________________
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com
17 years, 5 months
glibc issue
by Jovan Spasojevic
I want to kno if there is an issue with glibc??? I am using rawhide with
glibc 2.5.90-3
[jovans@localhost ~]$ ut2004
./ut2004-bin: relocation error: ./ut2004-bin: symbol atexit, version
GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference
[jovans@localhost ~]$
breaking ABI for the hell of it is a no-no
atexit()
[jovans@localhost System]$ readelf -sD ut2004-bin | grep atexi
655 3492: 0814a64c 53 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT UND atexit
[jovans@localhost System]$
i want today play ut200 but somthing goes wrong with glibc or whatever.
--
regards,
jovan
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/JovanSpasojevic
http://www.fedora-club.de
17 years, 5 months
are you using Fedora in a production environment?
by Max Spevack
Are you using Fedora in a production or live enviornment? Are you using
large deployments of Fedora, in some sort of "critical" capacity? Do you
know someone who is, and will you forward this email to them?
If you are, I want to hear all about it. I'm trying to gather data for
some Fedora myth-busting exercises, and also to inform some of our
decision making for Fedora 7.
What's your setup like?
What is it about Fedora that made you choose to use it, as opposed to
something else?
What works well for you?
What could be better?
etc, etc. Anything you care to share with me.
Reply on-list, reply to me directly, whatever works best for you.
Thanks,
Max
--
Max Spevack
+ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack
+ gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc
+ fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21
17 years, 5 months
updating db4 to 4.5.20
by Jindrich Novy
Hi,
I'm planning db4 update to 4.5.20 in a short time. Does anybody see a
problem in it? (regarding quality of the upstream code, known breakages
of this release etc.?) I tested this release together with Robert Scheck
in bz #198038 and it looks sane.
Proposed new db4 package is:
http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/db4-4.5.20-1.src.rpm
if you want to test.
Rebuilds of all the db4 dependent packages will be needed and db4-4.3
will be moved to compat-db then.
Rawhide breakage time(TM) has come again :]
Jindrich
--
Jindrich Novy <jnovy(a)redhat.com>, http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/
(o_ _o)
//\ The worst evil in the world is refusal to think. //\
V_/_ _\_V
17 years, 5 months
yum clean all
by Steve G
Hi,
Should "yum clean all" really clean all or just the repos that are enabled?
[root yum]# /root/bin/dir_usage | sort -n
1.4G updates
3.0M development-debuginfo
7.2M core
7.2M development
11M extras-development
36K anaconda
37M extras
64K brew
97M base
562M updates-released
[root yum]# yum clean all
Cleaning up Everything
[root yum]# /root/bin/dir_usage | sort -n
1.4G updates
7.2M core
24K brew
24K development-debuginfo
24K extras-development
36K anaconda
37M extras
97M base
200K development
562M updates-released
There's several sizable directories for disabled repos that I was expecting it to
have cleaned. Before I file a bug, is this the expected behavior?
-Steve
____________________________________________________________________________________
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
(http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/)
17 years, 5 months