Re: Help testing full end-to-end xattr support in portage

On 07/02/14 09:41, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:47:26 -0400
> "Anthony G. Basile" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There are two advantages to paxctl over paxctl-ng from elfix: 1) It
>> doesn't depend on elfutils to do its manipulation of elf phdr's.  2)
>> It does try to convert or create a PT_PAX_FLAGS phdr by either
>> creating (-C) or converting (-c) a PT_GNU_STACK phdr.
>>
>> The advantage of paxctl-ng over paxctl is 1) it is designed to do
>> both PT_PAX and/or XATTR_PAX markings, 2) it is consciously designed
>> to not try to create/convert ELF phdr's.
>>
>> If we ever drop the PT_PAX_FLAGS patch from binutils then paxctl
>> would no longer be needed and paxctl-ng can be reduced to just doing
>> XATTR_PAX markings.
>>
>> One step at a time ;)
>
> Okay, that sounds reasonable. And as paxctl is a small program, it
> doesn't hurt to have it around on XATTR_PAX-only systems even though
> it's not needed.
>
> But there's still an issue. According to [1], 15 packages still depend
> on or invoke paxctl directly. One example is dev-lisp/sbcl, which needs
> pax markings at one point right in the middle of the build process and
> therefore can't use the pax eclass, at least not in a simple way. This
> doesn't work on systems like mine which don't respect PT_PAX flags.
>
> I'm currently working on a patch for sbcl (there are selinux-related
> issues as well), but please have a look at the other ebuilds.
>
> [1] $ echo /usr/portage/*/*/*.ebuild|xargs -n1000 grep -P 'paxctl(?!-ng)'|cut -d: -f1
>
>
> Regards,
> Luis Ressel
>

Yep open a tracker bug for packages that invoke paxctl directly, and 
attach that to the main tracker bug, bug #427888.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197