|
Message-ID: <20140201010106.GA24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:01:06 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: yet another alternative libc On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:00:10AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > I don't think relro or bind_now are causing the issues I hit, but I > didn't investigate enough. Right now I'm "entertaining" myself by > building up that stage into a usable desktop. But soon I will run a > full rebuild with hardening and see what happens. The biggest show > stopper was gcc itself could not rebuild itself, ie, gentoo's > vanilla gcc can build our hardened gcc which "works" but cannot in > turn build hardened gcc again. I will provide details. What happens when it fails? Crash or meaningful error message? I'd very much like any reports of GCC failures since even if they seem to be a result of your configuration, it might be that the configuration is just uncovering a bug in musl that happened not to be hit in other configurations. I can think of at least two such instances in the past; one was a real, serious bug in musl and the other was musl's qsort behaving in a perfectly conforming way that GCC did not expect (calling the comparison function with the same element for both arguments) and causing an assertion failure in GCC. I "fixed" the latter anyway. :) > >3. We're interested in any reports of problems with PIE and SSP. The > >issue of SSP not getting initialized in tiny (configure-script-test > >sized) programs that don't reference __stack_chk_fail is known, but > >any other SSP-related problems would likely be something new we should > >check out. > > I will certainly report. I assume the list is fine? Yes, it's the best place. Maybe post-1.0 we'll add a bug tracker but we don't have one yet. Rich
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.