Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Greg Turner <gmt@×××××.us>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] News item: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:45:33
1 On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > Will bug #332823 and its ilk somehow be mitigated? Emerging glibc with
4 > -fstack-protector still leads to similar problems. There doesn't
5 > currently seem to be a bug report about this that isn't marked INVALID.
7 Is this a bug/limitation in glibc's actual code, or in glibc's build
8 environment?
10 Asked another (wordier) way -- should I understand -- assuming nobody
11 adds some explicit -fno-stack-protector to the non-hardened profiles
12 or the glibc ebuild -- and, of course, also that the user has not put
13 it in make.conf or similar -- that this would break glibc compilation
14 in the base configurations of the x86/amd64 non-hardened profiles?*
16 If that's so... that doesn't sound so great, does it?
18 Just thinking out loud, I guess, but, the fact -- if it is, indeed,
19 still a fact (?) -- that, as of gcc-4.8.2, putting -fstack-protector
20 in your CFLAGS breaks glibc.ebuild doesn't /necessarily/ mean that, as
21 of gcc-4.8.3, leaving -fno-stack-protector out of your cflags would
22 also break it, even if they are supposed to mean the same thing --
23 that would depend on the specific etiology of the problem.
25 Sorry, perhaps Google Search would answer my question as readily as
26 portage, in which case, by all means feel free to "lmgtfy" my ass.
27 But if nobody knows the answer for sure, presumably you have the means
28 to find out, Ryan?
30 If for any reason you need a guinea-pig, I have a non-hardened
31 triple-multilib (but mostly ABI_X86="64 32") workstation, here, that
32 I'm not afraid to break.
34 -gmt
36 *Apologies for the horrific run-on sentence!