Bug 174632
Summary: | LTC20112- IBM plugin crashes Firefox and Mozilla when symlinked from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim> |
Component: | java-1.4.2-ibm | Assignee: | mark wisner <markwiz> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 4.0 | CC: | bugproxy |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i386 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2005-12-06 15:40:08 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Thomas Fitzsimmons
2005-11-30 21:57:18 UTC
---- Additional Comments From chavez.com(prefers email via lnx1138.com) 2005-12-05 12:50 EDT ------- Is this a duplicate of RH170318 or something entirely different? Yes, it is the same issue. I should have appended the information here to the end of that report. ---- Additional Comments From chavez.com(prefers email via lnx1138.com) 2005-12-06 10:34 EDT ------- Thomas, So can we close this one and work this through RH170318? We had people report that the symlink did not work (it did for me as it did for you) but they may have been doing it in the the plugins directory not specific to the browser or via a double link. The other alternative that always seems to work is to update the LD_LIBRARY_PATH with the location of the JVM since that is what the plugin searches now. I really dislike both of these solutions but patching mozilla doesn\'t make sense or is very viable (at least a patch in mainline mozilla) since the location of the IBM Java will vary as will the directory name it is in. The IBM Java folks don\'t want to revert the change since it was initially made to prevent linker cache security attacks. So, if you would, I\'ld like to hear about a better solution. I wonder if the Java folks would go for following multiple symlinks to make your solution workable or whether they\'ll find this to be a security issue as well. I\'ll ask. If you have any other suggestions or you think your multiple symlink suggestion is the way to go, please post it in RH170318. Thanks. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 170318 *** changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |REJECTED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From chavez.com(prefers email via lnx1138.com) 2005-12-06 11:16 EDT ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18934 *** |