From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47771) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQKSU-0001Ar-3b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:58:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQKSP-00063b-W7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:57:57 -0500 Received: from mail-vx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]:57314) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQKSP-00063T-R4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:57:53 -0500 Received: by vcbfo13 with SMTP id fo13so4754028vcb.4 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:57:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EC27DEE.1020206@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:57:50 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1321349691-19099-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 1.0] configure: build position independent executables on x86 hosts List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Blue Swirl , Paul Moore , Avi Kivity , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 11/15/2011 05:25 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 15 November 2011 09:34, Avi Kivity wrote: >> Change the default on x86 hosts to building PIE (position independent >> executables); instead of restricting the option to user-only targets, >> apply it to all targets. >> >> In addition, set the relocation sections to read-only (relro) when available; >> this reduces the attack surface by disallowing changes to relocation tables >> at runtime. >> >> While PIE reduces performance and relro increases load time, it greatly >> improves security, with the potential to reduce a code execution vulnerability >> to a self denial of service. >> >> Non-x86 are not changed, as they require TCG changes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell > > ...as far as the technical content of the patch is concerned. > I'm still rather dubious about the merits of putting this patch > in this late in the release cycle. How about we limit this to be enabled by default on x86 Linux hosts? That would make me a lot more comfortable for 1.0 since I expect we can test that exhaustively. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM > >