| 1 |
Hello! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Sorry for delays in answer, I have lost some of my mails as of |
| 4 |
20040616-17, so please ask again if you had some questions that are not |
| 5 |
covered in this mail. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
1. the patch-2.5.9 patch is needed for all cases when LDFLAGS_PIE is not |
| 8 |
set, the other way round would be to set LDFLAGS_PIE=0 outside the ifdef |
| 9 |
before checking (error corrected, after running configure you'll see unary |
| 10 |
operator because LDFLAGS_PIE does not exist in most of the cases) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
2. the binutils-2.15.91.0.1-r2 changes are not ok, they remove relro |
| 13 |
support for all cases, not only for uclibc, I'll do a current binutils |
| 14 |
tarball and ebuild |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
3. binutils-2.14 w/ the uclibc support could need also porting sparc1 |
| 17 |
patch to the non-relro version |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
4. uclibc can't miss my patches, the patches that update ssp.c can be |
| 20 |
replaced w/ the same procedure as glibc copying the newest ssp.c over the |
| 21 |
old one, but: |
| 22 |
- Makefile patch is needed to build against system-installed |
| 23 |
kernel-headers |
| 24 |
- ssp patches are needed for ldso and libc, else an ssp enabled system |
| 25 |
will fail building ldso and libc (haven't found a solution to disable ssp |
| 26 |
only on libc, but not on the other libs) |
| 27 |
- uclibc should be a cvs version and not 0.9.26, else you'll have binary |
| 28 |
compatibility issues |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
5. gcc-3.3.4 won't be supported (at least by me) until it gets a branch |
| 31 |
update including the pie infrastructure (only 3.4.0 has it), or someone |
| 32 |
backports/forwardports it. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
6. what to do w/ -D__ASSEMBLY__ stuff for sparc? Were the tests done w/ |
| 35 |
binutils-2.15.91 or 2.14 (2.14 misses some sparc patches)? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Peter |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
Archives