lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>
>> For klibc you need to patch scripts/Kbuild.klibc
>>
>> Appending it to KLIBCWARNFLAGS seems the right place.
>
> KLIBCREQFLAGS, rather.
>
>> Do you know from what gcc version we can start using
>> -fno-stack-protector?
>
> Isn't there a macro to test if gcc supports a specific option already?
>
> Either way, I can also add __stack_chk_fail() as an alias for abort(),
> for people who actually want the feature.
>

I looked at it again, and it looks like gcc depends on the TLS ABI in
order to pick the value of the cookie. That makes it a potentially lot
more cantankerous option; I would like to be able to support stack-smash
checking in klibc, but if it means implementing TLS on all
architectures, then that would really defeat the purpose (and we should
add -fno-stack-protector to KLIBCREQFLAGS.)

Arjan: I see a few stack-protector-related have your name on it, do you
have any details on implementation constraints for this across
architectures?

-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-07-02 01:29    [W:0.177 / U:24.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site