Bug 1570306
Summary: | softhsm crashes applications using p11-kit-proxy | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Francisco de la Peña <fran> |
Component: | softhsm | Assignee: | Paul Wouters <pwouters> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | dueno, nmavrogi, pwouters |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-07-25 08:05:00 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Francisco de la Peña
2018-04-21 20:08:58 UTC
I tried to reproduce it, but couldn't. Could you provide more information about your configuration: - NSS and p11-kit package versions - How softhsm is configured (do you have a token initialized and any certificates/keys in it?) (In reply to Francisco de la Peña from comment #0) > 2. Configure NSS to use p11-kit-proxy: > # alternatives --install /usr/lib64/libnssckbi.so \ > libnssckbi.so.x86_64 /usr/lib64/p11-kit-proxy.so 50 This is to explicitly override the default installation, that registers p11-kit-trust.so with priority 30, right? Closing as duplicate as it is seen to be related. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1607635 *** > This is to explicitly override the default installation, that registers > p11-kit-trust.so with priority 30, right? Yes, it is. Also happens here with the upcoming F29 crypto policies approach. I didn't configure softhsm, so it should use defaults here. Tested with latest F28 downstream packages, still reproduceable here. > Closing as duplicate as it is seen to be related. Indeed, I can confirm the backtrace is the same there as in bug 1607635, +1. |