Glibc 2.12 issue
michael.hope at linaro.org
Wed Sep 1 22:53:23 BST 2010
I agree. It's also inappropriate for something as low level as libgcc
to have dependencies on other libraries such as libssp.
We'll propose a patch adding '-fno-stack-protector' to the gcc list
and see how it goes.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 9/1/2010 2:10 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
>> 3. Should libgcc be built without -fstack-protector?
> To put it more strongly, I believe that libgcc should not be built with
> I don't think there's any reason to expect that all code in libgcc would
> continue to work with stack-protection checks inserted (e.g., low-level
> primitives for thread safety or exception-handling, where chaos may
> ensue if a fault occurs in the midst of the stack-protection code).
> Furthermore, those checks will increase overhead for all users of the
> library. And, if libgcc has dependencies on other shared libraries,
> that could potentially break binary compatibility across Linux
> If someone wants to build libgcc with -fstack-protector, that would
> require an assessment of all code in libgcc to make sure that is safe.
> libgcc is emphatically not "application" code.
> Mark Mitchell
> mark at codesourcery.com
> (650) 331-3385 x713
> linaro-toolchain mailing list
> linaro-toolchain at lists.linaro.org
More information about the linaro-toolchain