Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:59:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: jhell <jhell@DataIX.net>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Oliver Lehmann <lehmann@ans-netz.de> Subject: Re: samba - SIGABRT Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0910081057150.25965@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910081542130.95451@fledge.watson.org> References: <20091007200959.3c93904f.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910071451030.25972@qvzrafvba.5c.ybpny> <20091008062326.11720.qmail@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910081542130.95451@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > >>> This was caused by your setting of the following: >>> security.bsd.map_at_zero=0 You can reset that value to 1 and you should be >>> alright to operate like normal otherwise you will have to compile samba >>> over again with the above mentioned configure options. >> >> Yeah this caused the problem. I wonder how I could have find this by myself >> (google is not counting ;)) I mean, the Abort message is not very verbose >> what the problem is here > > Hi Oliver-- > > While it's probably a bug that the Samba port compiles --pie, it's also a bug > that our linking bits aren't handling PIE properly either. The goal is to > fix PIE with the non-NULL mapping feature in the immediate future, so with > any luck the abort message won't matter too much longer. How about reverting this change or defaulting security.bsd.map_at_zero=1 until either ports can handle this properly or our -pie is fixed, and we've had at least a release with pre-built packages that don't have the problem? -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0910081057150.25965>