Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 357541
188.8.131.52-37.fc8 BUG/NULL pointer dereference in selinux code
Last modified: 2007-12-07 18:24:52 EST
Description of problem:
When I run "mock", it exits with code 139, and the dmesg
buffer contains one more kernel BUG/Oops report.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Every time - at least on this machine. I don't have another with F8.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run "mock".
exit code 139, kernel BUG/Oops.
mock doing something useful.
The system is not a fresh install of F8Tsomething, but has
been "yum upgraded" from F7. So a few things might be amiss,
but that should never cause NULL pointer dereferences in the
Created attachment 242621 [details]
BUG log in dmesg
Created attachment 243651 [details]
dmesg from 184.108.40.206-37.fc8 (non-PAE version)
Same issue with 220.127.116.11-37.fc8 as with 18.104.22.168-37.fc8PAE.
(As requested by Chuck Ebbert)
I have just rememberd... it may be a "broken" mock SELinux policy module
triggering this, as I have mucked around with a mock policy module around FC6.
As broken as that mock policy may be, I will not touch it for a few weeks in
order to help you guys figure out the in-kernel issue.
The Fedora Wiki has a page with a few hints about an SELinux policy. I once
tried to make those into a package. The remnants of this is what I have
installed here - the mock selinux policy module is still loaded, but the RPM
package has been uninstalled.
If you want to examine the actual policy module yourself, I have uploaded the
loaded mock.pp (file /etc/selinux/targeted/modules/active/modules/mock.pp) to
This is probably generated from
but I cannot find the exact noarch RPM used to install it any more.
It is the buggy .pp file. We can't figure out how it go built wrong but we have
added new checks upstream to make sure something like this gets rejected in the
future rather than oops. The upstream patch is at:
since this is root only and you could more easily destroy your system other ways
i don't feel strongly about putting this into the F8 kernel right now. So I'm
going to close this as upstream and we'll get the extra validity checks when we
move to .24
If anyone feels strongly about having these validity checks in the F8 kernel let
*** Bug 388061 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***