* secilc: segfault on what should be "Recursive block call found"?
@ 2015-09-12 12:53 Dominick Grift
2015-09-14 13:24 ` Dominick Grift
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dominick Grift @ 2015-09-12 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: selinux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
- ----- Forwarded message from Dominick Grift <dac.override@gmail.com> -----
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 14:51:22 +0200
From: Dominick Grift <dac.override@gmail.com>
To: selinux@tycho.nsa.gove
Subject: secilc: segfault on what should be "Recursive block call found"?
User-Agent: Every email client sucks, this one just sucks less.
I am knee-deep in namespaces and hitting all kinds of exotic challenges
I had a macro with the same name as a macro call in it, like:
(in bla
(macro foo ((type ARG1))
call foo (ARG1)))
secilc helpfully threw a message telling me:
Recursive macro call found
Failed to compile cildb: -1
Great. after a short struggle i managed to locate the issue (unfortunately
secilc was not more specific as to the location of the issue)
Now i am hitting what seems to be a similar issue to the above. except
that in this case its not about macros but about block
consider:
(in bla
(block foo_blk
(blockabstract foo_blk)
(blockinherit foo_blk))
In this case, though secilc segfaults, instead of telling me:
Recursive block call found
Failed to compile cildb: -1
this is just theory though... but i suspect the above is true
- --
02DFF788
4D30 903A 1CF3 B756 FB48 1514 3148 83A2 02DF F788
https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x314883A202DFF788
Dominick Grift
- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
02DFF788
4D30 903A 1CF3 B756 FB48 1514 3148 83A2 02DF F788
https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x314883A202DFF788
Dominick Grift
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=CkY3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: secilc: segfault on what should be "Recursive block call found"?
2015-09-12 12:53 secilc: segfault on what should be "Recursive block call found"? Dominick Grift
@ 2015-09-14 13:24 ` Dominick Grift
2015-09-14 13:33 ` Steve Lawrence
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dominick Grift @ 2015-09-14 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: selinux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 02:53:21PM +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
<snip>
>
> secilc helpfully threw a message telling me:
>
> Recursive macro call found
> Failed to compile cildb: -1
>
The above is an example for how error message should *not* look. Here is
an example of how they *should* look:
macro statement is not allowed in optionals (/run/user/1000/dssp/sources/modules/contrib/system/usersubj/macros.cil:819)
- --
02DFF788
4D30 903A 1CF3 B756 FB48 1514 3148 83A2 02DF F788
https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x314883A202DFF788
Dominick Grift
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=4D0w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: secilc: segfault on what should be "Recursive block call found"?
2015-09-14 13:24 ` Dominick Grift
@ 2015-09-14 13:33 ` Steve Lawrence
2015-09-14 14:12 ` Dominick Grift
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Steve Lawrence @ 2015-09-14 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: selinux
On 09/14/2015 09:24 AM, Dominick Grift wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 02:53:21PM +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> secilc helpfully threw a message telling me:
>
>> Recursive macro call found
>> Failed to compile cildb: -1
>
>
> The above is an example for how error message should *not* look. Here is
> an example of how they *should* look:
>
> macro statement is not allowed in optionals (/run/user/1000/dssp/sources/modules/contrib/system/usersubj/macros.cil:819)
>
The original issue was with recursive blockinherits. Should have a patch
out shortly. Will also improve the error message for macros (and
blockinherits) to show a trace of where the recursion came form.
- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: secilc: segfault on what should be "Recursive block call found"?
2015-09-14 13:33 ` Steve Lawrence
@ 2015-09-14 14:12 ` Dominick Grift
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dominick Grift @ 2015-09-14 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Lawrence; +Cc: selinux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:33:31AM -0400, Steve Lawrence wrote:
> On 09/14/2015 09:24 AM, Dominick Grift wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 02:53:21PM +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> secilc helpfully threw a message telling me:
> >
> >> Recursive macro call found
> >> Failed to compile cildb: -1
> >
> >
> > The above is an example for how error message should *not* look. Here is
> > an example of how they *should* look:
> >
> > macro statement is not allowed in optionals (/run/user/1000/dssp/sources/modules/contrib/system/usersubj/macros.cil:819)
> >
>
>
> The original issue was with recursive blockinherits. Should have a patch
> out shortly. Will also improve the error message for macros (and
> blockinherits) to show a trace of where the recursion came form.
Thanks. here is another one that could use the same threatment:
macro is not a block
Failed to compile cildb: -1
>
> - Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Selinux mailing list
> Selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
> To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@tycho.nsa.gov.
> To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@tycho.nsa.gov.
- --
02DFF788
4D30 903A 1CF3 B756 FB48 1514 3148 83A2 02DF F788
https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x314883A202DFF788
Dominick Grift
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=0Zmh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-14 14:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-09-12 12:53 secilc: segfault on what should be "Recursive block call found"? Dominick Grift
2015-09-14 13:24 ` Dominick Grift
2015-09-14 13:33 ` Steve Lawrence
2015-09-14 14:12 ` Dominick Grift
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.