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. |
6 |
|
7 |
Is this a bug/limitation in glibc's actual code, or in glibc's build |
8 |
environment? |
9 |
|
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?* |
15 |
|
16 |
If that's so... that doesn't sound so great, does it? |
17 |
|
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. |
24 |
|
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? |
29 |
|
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. |
33 |
|
34 |
-gmt |
35 |
|
36 |
*Apologies for the horrific run-on sentence! |