Kern, Thank you for chiming in. Your input is very useful.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 08:12:16AM -0000, Kern Sibbald wrote: > I have installed a 16.04 system and built Bacula using the project > compile and link options. Everything works perfectly both with and > without binary stripping. I conclude from this that the Ubuntu > packaging is using different options on the compiles and/or links and/or > stripping which prohibit Bacula from directly testing the equality of > external subroutine addresses (probably by adding some thunking or other > indirect addressing). I wonder if this is related to ASLR, building as PIE or similar? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features has more details. I don't see anything there that would explain this change in behaviour, but it feels like it could to me. > Conclusion: eliminate all the non-Bacula compile and/or link options. > If you really want to use esoteric options, I recommend running the > regression tests on the packaged binaries prior to releasing. > Successfully running the regression tests virtually guarantee a good > build/package. We have processes and infrastructure to run tests provided by upstreams. If the regression tests aren't currently being run, we should fix that. > Second conclusion: in a future version of Bacula, I will eliminate all > code that tests equality of subroutine addresses. Thanks. Robie -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1553563 Title: bconsole to Bacula Director fails with authorization problem message To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bacula/+bug/1553563/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
