text relocation error in Fedora... any ideas?

[FaoqoWeziw]

Hi, not sure if this is the right place for this but... I am running Fedora 12 and using Firefox 10.0.1. I just tried installing the latest linux flash player plugin (11.2.202.236) last night from the fedora repositories. It installed but when I tried to visit a site using firefox that had flash content I got a security violation warning that the plugin requires text relocation and that allowing this could open up security holes. I didn't get this error for the last version of flash plugin I used (10.0 I believe). A little digging and I found a utility program to check for text relocations. It suggests the plugin needs to be recomplied with the -fpic or -fPIC switches on the compile line. Today I downloaded the archived versions of 2.202.235 and 2.202.233 and both give the same suggestion using the utility program. However, the current 64-bit linux plugin doesn't give any such warnings so it seems ok. Anyone else run into this? Is the current libflashplayer.so compiled with the -fpic switch? Any ideas? I'd rather not have to upgrade and re-install a bunch of packages.

PS) I should also mention that Firefox refuses to load the plugin because of the security warning so I can't access any flash content.

[chris.campbell]

Forwarding to one of our Linux guys.  Might take a few days, but I'll let you know what they have to say.

[FaoqoWeziw]

Thanks. Hopefully it will be a simple fix.

[libflashplayer_so]

you can attempt to bypass it specific for the libflashplayer.so binary.  in a terminal window, type the following command as root:

chcon -t textrel_shlib_t '<pathTolibflashplayer.soBinary>'

replace <pathTolibflashplayer.soBinary> with the location of yours (eg. /home/oracle/.mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so)

[FaoqoWeziw]

Thanks, I was hoping to not have to do that as I said in my original post. The warning stated that applying that change of security context could open up potential security holes. Any word on whether the 32-bit Linux flash plug-in was compiled differently from the 64-bit one, i.e. was one compiled without the -fpic flag? If not then the security kludge will have to do.

[libflashplayer_so]

we have an internal bug, #3226645, on the issue.  our dev put fpics where they should be but still cannot determine the source of the issue.  the last bug note was it's either a linked library or a compiler issue.  unfortunately, investigation is ongoing...

[libflashplayer_so]

thought you should know...  our internal bug has been marked fixed and should roll out in the next backport.  scheduling has not been confirmed, so we are unable to comment when it will occur.  thanks.