Re: yet another alternative libc

[Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>]

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