Bug#1103173: marked as done (nmu: rebuild without executable stack)
Your message dated Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:34:05 +0200
with message-id <Z_393YB-rwBR9jdZ@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1103173: nmu: rebuild without executable stack
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103173,
regarding nmu: rebuild without executable stack
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1103173: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1103173
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
Dear release team,
Starting with version 2.44-2, binutils defaults to a non-executable
stack in an absence of the .note.GNU-stack ELF note (which defines if
the stack needs to be executable or not).
As part of the glibc 2.41 transition, I scanned the whole archive to
find libraries and executables with an executable stack. Some of them
are fixable by a simple binNMU. The rebuild is NOT needed for
compatibility with glibc 2.41, but that's less potential security
issues, and IMHO that's less surprises in case a rebuild is need at a
later point (e.g. security upload).
Here is the list in wb format:
nmu angelscript_2.35.1+ds-3.1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu care_2.2.1-1 . amd64 armel armhf i386 x32 . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu dssp_4.4.10-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu fasm_1.73.32-1 . amd64 i386 . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu ikarus_0.0.3+bzr.2010.01.26+bap.1-1 . amd64 i386 . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu jsusfx_0.4.0-6 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu proot_5.1.0-1.3 . amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu smlsharp_4.1.0-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu tinymembench_0.4+git20231218+ds-2 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
nmu zfs-fuse_0.7.0-30 . amd64 armel armhf i386 powerpc ppc64 ppc64el sparc64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
Please feel free to schedule them or just close this bug in case you
do not really see the added value of rebuilding those.
Regards
Aurelien
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2025-04-14 22:46:01 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: binnmu
>
> Dear release team,
>
> Starting with version 2.44-2, binutils defaults to a non-executable
> stack in an absence of the .note.GNU-stack ELF note (which defines if
> the stack needs to be executable or not).
>
> As part of the glibc 2.41 transition, I scanned the whole archive to
> find libraries and executables with an executable stack. Some of them
> are fixable by a simple binNMU. The rebuild is NOT needed for
> compatibility with glibc 2.41, but that's less potential security
> issues, and IMHO that's less surprises in case a rebuild is need at a
> later point (e.g. security upload).
>
> Here is the list in wb format:
>
> nmu angelscript_2.35.1+ds-3.1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu care_2.2.1-1 . amd64 armel armhf i386 x32 . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu dssp_4.4.10-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu fasm_1.73.32-1 . amd64 i386 . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu ikarus_0.0.3+bzr.2010.01.26+bap.1-1 . amd64 i386 . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu jsusfx_0.4.0-6 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu proot_5.1.0-1.3 . amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu smlsharp_4.1.0-1 . amd64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu tinymembench_0.4+git20231218+ds-2 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
> nmu zfs-fuse_0.7.0-30 . amd64 armel armhf i386 powerpc ppc64 ppc64el sparc64 . unstable . -m "Rebuild without executable stack" --extra-depends "binutils (>= 2.44-2)"
Scheduled, thanks.
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
--- End Message ---
Reply to: