1 |
On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 19:46, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: |
2 |
> On 12 Nov 2003, Ned Ludd wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:31, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: |
5 |
> > > There are problems building some of the binaries with propolice enabled |
6 |
> > > gcc, mainly the .hidden support in binutils has to be "hidden" from gcc, |
7 |
> > > but as I can see (read), the glibc version does not work flawlessly |
8 |
> > > either. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > Have you successfully used ssp with uclibc? |
11 |
> It worked (somehow, not quite correct, and some packages where not |
12 |
> rebuildable) at the time where uClibc had support for LIBGCC_FUNCTIONS |
13 |
> (adding functions from libgcc to libc) This was the only way I got a |
14 |
> system running it (__guard and __smash... where added to libc). Since then |
15 |
> I cannot modify buildroot so that I get a system running, segfaults on all |
16 |
> the line (tested only with gcc-3.3.x and protector 3.3-5). I think the |
17 |
> solution would be to add the needed functions to uClibc (and remove them |
18 |
> from libgcc!!!). |
19 |
|
20 |
One of the hardened-gcc version introduced guard symbols to libgcc.a. |
21 |
I'm pretty sure this no longer should be the case if your running ~arch |
22 |
as they are in fact getting introduced into glibc. |
23 |
If you care to hack the functionaly into uClibc I'll point you at the |
24 |
glibc version from etoh http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/ssp/guard.c |
25 |
|
26 |
> |
27 |
> > > 1. UPX works too (I have built 1.91-cvs), the compression is not so good, |
28 |
> > > as with prebuilt binaries (NRV is not free), but works also on kernel |
29 |
> > > images (bzImage) |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > Would this have a big advantage over say cramfs support? I would assume |
32 |
> > that most compressed file systems or executable packers also tend to use |
33 |
> > more memory on access whihc could lead to an ever slower system. |
34 |
> UPX developer says, that the uncompression does not cost much, didn't |
35 |
> really tested it. I do not have cramfs experience. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> > > 3. The uClibc toolchain is not uptodate, but the buildroot is already used |
38 |
> > > by the developers themselves to create development images, so the infos on |
39 |
> > > cross-building are there and tested already. |
40 |
> > |
41 |
> > Please take a look at the 0.9.22 ebuild in portage. The wrappers for |
42 |
> > gcc,c++,ld,ldd,ar,etc are all missing and I don't know why. I've checked |
43 |
> > the detail/changelogs on the uclibc.org site and see no mention of this |
44 |
> > what so ever. |
45 |
> The wrappers are for ever gone. Use the procedure from buildroot (the |
46 |
> toolchain building from here). |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Peter |
49 |
-- |
50 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
51 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |