[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49918E86.4020304@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:26:14 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET x86/master] add stack protector support for x86_32
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> I'll try other compilers but which version are you using? The
>>> difference is that before the patchset, -fno-stack-protector was
>>> always added whether stackprotector was enabled or not so this problem
>>> wasn't visible (at the cost of bogus stackprotector of course). We'll
>>> probably need to add __stack_chk_guard or disable if gcc generates
>>> such symbol. I'll play with different gccs.
>> Can't reproduce with gcc-4.1 or 4.2. Any chance you're using distcc
>> w/ a build machine w/ glibc < 2.4? __stack_chk_guard is the symbol
>> gcc fetches stack canary from if TLS is not supported, so somehow gcc
>> thought that TLS wasn't available while building head64.
>
> yeah - i also used distcc. Maybe the nostackp makefile magic gets confused
> about that?
It seems that even with the same gcc versions, gcc built against libc
w/o TLS support generates __stack_chk_guard, so if you mix the two
flavors, the has-stack-protector check can be compiled on machines w/
TLS while some other files end up being built on machines w/o TLS
support thus circumventing the support check. Can you please see
whether non-distcc build fails too?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists