| 1 |
On Tue, May 9, 2017, at 15:10 CDT, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> There is a *huge* difference between: |
| 4 |
> <flag name="nopie">Disable PIE support (NOT FOR GENERAL USE)</flag> |
| 5 |
> and the negation of: |
| 6 |
> pie - Build programs as Position Independent Executables (a security |
| 7 |
> hardening technique) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Enabling the latter builds *everything* as PIE. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Yes. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Do you realize that this breaks linking against about any static lib |
| 14 |
> ever built before upgrading ? And I'm not even considering people |
| 15 |
> toggling the flag. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes, I am aware of this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
On Tue, May 9, 2017, at 15:27 CDT, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> I disagree. We might want to default the "pie" USE flag differently |
| 24 |
> depending on the profile, but there's no need to force it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Well, Alexis certainly makes a strong point. Breaking installed static |
| 27 |
archives by changing a use flag shouldn't be as easy as changing a |
| 28 |
useflag. So we might simply use.force the pie use flag depending on |
| 29 |
hardened/non-hardened profiles. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'll follow up with a proposed profile change forcing -pie for non |
| 33 |
hardened and pie for hardened profiles (instead of this news item). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I have one question, though: For what arches do we have to disable pie? |
| 36 |
(The current patchset simply enables all.) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Best, |
| 39 |
Matthias |
Archives