[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <584A8E9E.22035.590FC72@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 11:59:42 +0100
From: "PaX Team" <pageexec@...email.hu>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>
CC: "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: enable support for GCC plugins
On 9 Dec 2016 at 13:48, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> >> as for the solutions, the general advice should enable the use of otherwise
> >> failing gcc versions instead of forcing updating to new ones (though the
> >> latter is advisable for other reasons but not everyone's in the position to
> >> do so easily). in my experience all one needs to do is manually install the
> >> missing files from the gcc sources (ideally distros would take care of it).
>
> If someone else is willing to write up that advice, then great.
>
> >> the specific problem addressed here can (and IMHO should) be solved in
> >> another way: remove the inclusion of the offending headers in gcc-common.h
> >> as neither tm.h nor c-common.h are needed by existing plugins. for background,
>
> We can't build without tm.h: http://pastebin.com/W0azfCr0
you'll need to repeat the removal of dependent headers. based on a quick
test here across gcc 4.5-6.2, if you remove rtl.h, tm_p.h, hard-reg-set.h
and emit-rtl.h in addition to tm.h, the plugins should build fine.
> And we get warnings without c-common.h: http://pastebin.com/Aw8CAj10
that's not due to c-common.h. gcc versions 4.5-4.6 are compiled as a C program
and gcc 4.7 can be compiled both as a C and a C++ program (IIRC, distros opted
for the latter, i forget what manually built versions default to but i guess you
went with the C compilation for your gcc anyway). couple that with -Wmissing-prototypes
and you get that warning regardless of c-common.h being included. something like
this should fix it:
--- a/scripts/gcc-plugins/gcc-generate-gimple-pass.h 2016-12-06 01:01:54.521724573 +0100
+++ b/scripts/gcc-plugins/gcc-generate-gimple-pass.h 2016-12-09 11:43:32.225226164 +0100
@@ -136,6 +136,7 @@
return new _PASS_NAME_PASS();
}
#else
+struct opt_pass *_MAKE_PASS_NAME_PASS(void);
struct opt_pass *_MAKE_PASS_NAME_PASS(void)
{
return &_PASS_NAME_PASS.pass;
> These were all manually built using a script running on a Debian box.
> Installing precompiled distro versions of rather old gccs would have
> been somewhat challenging. I've just rebuilt 4.6.4 to double check that
> I wasn't just seeing things, but it seems that it definitely is still
> putting c-common.h in the old location.
for reference, this is the git commit that did the move:
commit 7bedc3a05d34cd81e4835a2d3ff8c0ec7108eeb5
Author: steven <steven@...bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
Date: Sat Jun 5 20:33:22 2010 +0000
gcc/ChangeLog:
* c-common.c: Move to c-family/.
* c-common.def: Likewise.
* c-common.h: Likewise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
