From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4532 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: yet another alternative libc Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:01:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20140201010106.GA24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <52E97075.4030306@gentoo.org> <20140130060641.GS24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <52EA68FA.8000404@opensource.dyc.edu> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391216472 18136 80.91.229.3 (1 Feb 2014 01:01:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 01:01:12 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4536-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Feb 01 02:01:20 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W9OxT-0006so-2n for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 02:01:19 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 21874 invoked by uid 550); 1 Feb 2014 01:01:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 21866 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2014 01:01:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52EA68FA.8000404@opensource.dyc.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4532 Archived-At: 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