Hi CA support,
Our product which is a reverse proxy currently uses following client side siteminder 6.0 version libraries:
64bit siteminder libraries:
===================
libsmagentapi.so, libsmerrlog.so, libsmcommonutil.so, libsmjavaagentapi.so, libetpki2.so, libetpki_openssl_crypto.so, libetpki2_thread_posix.so, libetpki_openssl_ssl.so
32bit siteminder libraries:
====================
libsmagentapi.so, libsmerrlog.so, libsmagentconmgrcomponent.so, libsmcommonutil.so, libsmjavaagentapi.so, libsmagentfunccomponent.so, libcryptocme2.so, libetpki_openssl_crypto.so, libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3, libct_runtime_api.so, libetpki_openssl_ssl.so, libetpki2.so, smreghost, libetpki2_thread_posix.so, smreghost.sh
These libraries were provided by CA 6 yrs. back, as it is, and are committed into the version control (svn) and we don't have a source code to build these libraries now.
Most of the above libraries were compiled with older gcc and are linked with libstdc++.so.5.
The product has evolved over this time and our code is currently compiled and built with gcc-4.3.2 version which uses libstdc++.so.6 for linking.
So our product binaries are have linking as follows:
[root@***] # ldd *** | grep libstdc++
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00007f80512c0000)
libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.5 (0x00007f804fb20000)
This causes lots of crashes in our code due to conflicting functions and symbols present in both of the above .so
To avoid this we had to remove siteminder support from our product but going further we want to put it back for our customers who need it.
When we logged a case with CA, the customer support told us to create enhancement request here, thus doing so.
So we need:
1) Above 64 bit siteminder libraries compiled with gcc-4.3.2 or above so that it has libstdc++.so.6 linking instead of libstdc++.so.5 ? OR
2) provide us a code for above libraries so that we can build them on our system ? OR
3) provide us some solution to avoid crashes due to conflicting symbols ?
Thanks !!
Amit