[CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Tue Apr 19 16:38:50 UTC 2011

At Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:49:59 -0500 CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 04/18/2011 10:48 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:07:04 -0500 CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen <tsorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that
> >>> version of glibc.
> >>>
> >>> That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are
> >>> four CVEs closed by this glibc update, one of which is potentially a
> >>> remote privilege escalation (and that one is NOT the one that is
> >>> causing the issue).
> >>>
> >>> If, for some reason, you cannot update then you should seriously
> >>> consider whether or not those systems can connect to the Internet, or
> >>> if you should get the glibc from Scientific Linux that has the 3
> >>> patches that do not cause an issue in the meantime.
> >>
> >> For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution
> >> and Gnome-Panel, correct? If so, for most servers, the update should
> >> not be a concern. I've updated four desktops -- the two with Intel
> >> video chips are not affected at all. The two with nVidia chipsets and
> >> proprietary nVidia drivers *are* affected. Since I don't use
> > 
> > Are only the nVidia chipsets + *proprietary* nVidia drivers?  And only
> > Evolution and Gnome-Panel?  And is it 32-bit AND 64-bit or only 32-bit
> > (or only 64-bit)?
> > 
> > I have a batch of 32-bit diskless workstations, powered by a 32-bit
> > server (all but one uses an Intel video chip, and the last is something
> > else -- not nVidia), one regular workstation (don't think it is nVidia
> > either).  A 32-bit laptop with a ATI video chip and a 64-bit desktop
> > with a nVidia video chip, but NOT the proprietary nVidia driver (I have
> > no use for 3D accel and refuse to mess with nVidia's proprietary
> > drivers).  All of these machines are still at CentOS 5.5, but I'd like
> > to update them to 5.6.  Oh, the laptop and the 64-bit workstation are
> > *my* machines and *I* don't use *any* desktop manager (neither GNome
> > nore KDE) on either machine.
> > 
> > Oh, no one uses Evolution on any of these machines (one person uses
> > Thunderbird). 
> 
> I am using this gilbc on my x86_64 laptop with the proprietary NVIDIA
> drivers (Quadro FX 1800M video on a Dell M4500n laptop).  I am not
> having any gnome-panel issues and I do not use Evolution, so not sure
> about that.
> 
> There are no issues reported where the glibc is affecting non X clients.

*I* found a new X client that I *guess* is affected: xrdb (which I
suspect almost no one actually uses anymore).  I get this error from
xrdb:

sh: -c: line 0: unexpected EOF while looking for matching `"'
sh: -c: line 1: syntax error: unexpected end of file

I upgraded my (32-bit) laptop to CentOS 5.6 and now my .Xdefaults file
is no longer being loaded.  Everything else seems to be working just
fine. Once I get to a high speed WiFi hot spot, I'll download the temp
fix glibc files and install them and see if that fixes things.

> 
> > 
> >> Evolution, the "work-around" for me is to issue the "pkill
> >> gnome-panel" command. Usually doing this once will fix it, but
> >> sometimes it requires a couple shots.
> >>
> >> I dual-boot into Linux Mint 10 (so I can remotely support my father
> >> who uses Linux Mint -- I need to be able to replicate his errors when
> >> he has them). It has a very similar issue, except, in its case, both
> >> Nautilus and Gnome-Panel do not come up. I have to go to a tty
> >> terminal and issue the "pkill nautilus" and "pkill gnome-panel"
> >> commands. I didn't have this problem *until* I updated the video
> >> driver to nVidia's proprietary one. So, again, it appears it might
> >> have something to do with the nVidia's driver.
> > 
> > Hmmm.  Proprietary drivers are something I avoid... 
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >> At any rate, there are work-arounds -- for those who use Evolution,
> >> the SL update is probably the best. I'm kind of surprised that Red Hat
> >> has not issued a fix yet.
> >> 
> 
> I have built the SL version of glibc for i386/i686 and the one for
> x86_64 is building now.  I stick them on
> http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/ when they are done.
> 
> Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iD8DBQFNrWjXTKkMgmrBY7MRAvc5AKCGz0ykKCetd/6VPc+yXz1aQE5+aACfQT8S
> 4kMnu8329c9ZzusKRl46zXc=
> =4HRl
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
>                                                           

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933 / heller at deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software        -- http://www.deepsoft.com/
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments