| 1 |
On 3/1/2011 6:22 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/01/2011 03:02 PM, pageexec@××××××××.hu wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 28 Feb 2011 at 15:39, Daniel Reidy wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:58 PM, <pageexec@××××××××.hu> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> that's actually not the intended use of the PIC USE flag, we wanted it originally |
| 7 |
>>>> to enable configuring/compiling position independent code for packages where one |
| 8 |
>>>> wanted to make a tradeoff between speed/security (i think php was one such app, |
| 9 |
>>>> even without any hand written asm code). |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> so with USE=pic you were supposed to get a textrel free, but potentially slower |
| 12 |
>>>> binary (partly because of the PIC overhead on i386 and partly because sometimes |
| 13 |
>>>> it meant using the C implementation of some algo instead of hand written asm). |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> So if I understand this correctly, we should now be turning off PIC on |
| 16 |
>>> Gentoo-Hardened systems running on AMD64. What about the non-hardened |
| 17 |
>>> variety, such as my desktop, that is only running a "stock" version of |
| 18 |
>>> Gentoo Sources without hardened features? |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> USE=pic should have exactly 0 effect on amd64 because the arch and the ELF ABI |
| 21 |
>> makes PIC zero cost basically. if some package manages to get around the rules |
| 22 |
>> somehow, it's a bug in that package, treat it accordingly ;). |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> This was Zorry's point. So if it has no effect, why keep it? I say |
| 26 |
> let's remove it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
There is no point in keeping it. This discussion has mostly been about |
| 29 |
reassuring people with less intimate knowledge of the AMD64 ABI of that |
| 30 |
fact :) |
Archives