Re: libffcall and selinux

Bruno Haible <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.lisp.clisp.devel
Message-ID <2500256.eRJDEmmnzk@omega>
Hi Don,

>  > Yes, it would be useful to enable SELinux checks (at least those
>  > that smell like related to "restricted mprotect" or like "write xor
>  > execute" or similar, and see how clisp behaves with these checks
>  > enabled.
> ...
> However, getsebool also shows
>  selinuxuser_execstack --> on
> 
>  If you want to allow unconfined executables to make their stack
>  executable. This should never, ever be necessary. Probably indicates
>  a badly coded executable, but could indicate an attack. This
>  executable should be reported in bugzilla, you must turn on the
>  selinuxuser_execstack boolean.
>  setsebool -P selinuxuser_execstack 1

This looks like the one that may be related to libffcall.

If you can go on with experiments, the better.
If not, I will pursue this avenue further.

>  selinuxuser_execmod --> on
> 
>  If you want to allow all unconfined executables to use libraries
>  requiring text relocation that are not labeled textrel_shlib_t, you
>  must turn on the selinuxuser_execmod boolean.
>  setsebool -P selinuxuser_execmod 1 

clisp doesn't use this feature (it's x86 specific, and the Solaris linker
has produced errors for this situation already for years, IIRC).

Bruno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
clisp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clisp-devel
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.