> @Dan did that already contain the fix you expect or would considering
a seccomp be useful?
For libseccomp, it looks like it doesn't need a rebuild; it appears to
only reference the symbol in its header (which is what causes this
problem for other packages that pull in that header); in its code, the
only reference is where its syscall number is defined is inside its
ppc64_syscall_table (and ppc_syscall_table), where it is defined
correctly.
ddstreet@thorin:~/bugs/lp1821625/sym-check/libseccomp/libseccomp-2.4.1$ grep -r
pkey_mprotect
include/seccomp.h.in:#define __PNR_pkey_mprotect -10201
include/seccomp.h.in:#ifndef __NR_pkey_mprotect
include/seccomp.h.in:#define __NR_pkey_mprotect __PNR_pkey_mprotect
include/seccomp.h.in:#endif /* __NR_pkey_mprotect */
include/seccomp.h:#define __PNR_pkey_mprotect -10201
include/seccomp.h:#ifndef __NR_pkey_mprotect
include/seccomp.h:#define __NR_pkey_mprotect __PNR_pkey_mprotect
include/seccomp.h:#endif /* __NR_pkey_mprotect */
src/arch-ppc-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", 386 },
src/arch-x32-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", (X32_SYSCALL_BIT + 329) },
src/arch-mips-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", (__SCMP_NR_BASE + 363) },
src/arch-x86-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", 380 },
src/arch-s390-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", __PNR_pkey_mprotect },
src/arch-parisc-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", __PNR_pkey_mprotect },
src/arch-s390x-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", __PNR_pkey_mprotect },
src/arch-ppc64-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", 386 },
src/arch-aarch64-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", 288 },
src/arch-arm-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", (__SCMP_NR_BASE + 394) },
src/arch-mips64-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", (__SCMP_NR_BASE + 323) },
src/arch-x86_64-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", 329 },
src/arch-mips64n32-syscalls.c: { "pkey_mprotect", (__SCMP_NR_BASE + 327) },
I still don't understand why libseccomp ever decided to define
__NR_pkey_mprotect to a negative number (if the kernel header doesn't define
it) in its public header file. IMHO that should be done in its code, or at
least in a private header file.
** Changed in: libseccomp (Ubuntu Bionic)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
** Changed in: libseccomp (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1821625
Title:
systemd 237-3ubuntu10.14 ADT test failure on Bionic ppc64el (test-
seccomp)
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libseccomp/+bug/1821625/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
