pkgsrc-Changes archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: ruby and NOT_PAX_MPROTECT_SAFE (was: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang)
Hi,
Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 04:59:07PM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
>> I marked these four .so files with paxctl +m.
>
> The attributes are a process property, not a DSO property.
I see. Thank you.
>> And I have no idea about Python case, however I think that all ruby-ffi
>> or py-cffi consumers may not hit the same errors.
>
> Python is fine with it. devel/libffi supports closures properly.
>
> Can you please make sure that ruby-ffi is not using its own copy of
> libffi, but a proper dependency?
It seems that two ffi_c.so files depend on libffi.so properly.
$ ldd /usr/pkg/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/gems/ffi-1.10.0/lib/ffi_c.so
/usr/pkg/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/gems/ffi-1.10.0/lib/ffi_c.so:
-lruby26.26 => /usr/pkg/lib/libruby26.so.26
-lexecinfo.0 => /usr/lib/libexecinfo.so.0
-lelf.2 => /usr/lib/libelf.so.2
-lc.12 => /usr/lib/libc.so.12
-lgcc_s.1 => /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
-lz.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1
-lpthread.1 => /usr/lib/libpthread.so.1
-lrt.1 => /usr/lib/librt.so.1
-lcrypt.1 => /usr/lib/libcrypt.so.1
-lm.0 => /usr/lib/libm.so.0
-lffi.6 => /usr/pkg/lib/libffi.so.6
ldd /usr/pkg/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/extensions/x86_64-netbsd/2.6.0/ffi-1.10.0/ffi_c.so
/usr/pkg/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/extensions/x86_64-netbsd/2.6.0/ffi-1.10.0/ffi_c.so:
-lruby26.26 => /usr/pkg/lib/libruby26.so.26
-lexecinfo.0 => /usr/lib/libexecinfo.so.0
-lelf.2 => /usr/lib/libelf.so.2
-lc.12 => /usr/lib/libc.so.12
-lgcc_s.1 => /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
-lz.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1
-lpthread.1 => /usr/lib/libpthread.so.1
-lrt.1 => /usr/lib/librt.so.1
-lcrypt.1 => /usr/lib/libcrypt.so.1
-lm.0 => /usr/lib/libm.so.0
-lffi.6 => /usr/pkg/lib/libffi.so.6
> Joerg
--
Ryo ONODERA // ryo%tetera.org@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index