Buildroot Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1 v2] gcc: Add support for --enable-default-pie configure option.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 14:42:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171229144204.00605c4e@windsurf.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5a5a8ab0-25f3-a3a2-bf5a-b9c7fe851c66@petroprogram.com>

Hello,

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 15:25:21 +0200, Stefan Fr?berg wrote:

> Yes, of course PIE (and other hardening flags) could be passed with
> CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS.
> 
> But what if some package does not care about CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS?
> (Like for example, zlib by default does not do, but I see that buildroot
> maually passes them
> to configure script)
> 
> Then you would need to patch all those packages while with default PIE
> there would
> be no need to patch. Compiler would automatically do the right thing
> 
> And in the case of PIE, there seems to be tricky rules what to put and
> where:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages
> 
> From the above link:
> 
> "The key change is that for PIE builds, compilation for static linking
> (such as object files which go into the main program, not a library)
> needs the flag -fPIE.
> 
> But this flag /must not be included when compiling for dynamic linking/
> because the
> resulting object code is not compatible with that.
> 
> To repeat, /*you should not specify both -fpic and -fpie on the same
> command line/*
> because this rarely has the intended effect. "
> 
> So with default pie built into compiler, the compiler would
> automatically do the right thing.
> 
> Other than letting compiler to handle the PIE and changing
> "fstack-protector-all" to
> "fstack-protector-strong"? (introduced in GCC 4.9, pretty much the same
> result that "all" but with less performance penalty)
> that generic hardening patch looks okay to me.
> 
> So I suggest that let the compiler handle PIE.

And what do you propose for external toolchains ?

That's the big limitation in your proposal: it works fine for the
internal toolchain, but doesn't work at all for the external toolchain.
Hence the discussion on using CFLAGS, or the compiler wrapper.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-12-29 13:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-28 21:43 [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1 v2] gcc: Add support for --enable-default-pie configure option Stefan Fröberg
2017-12-28 22:07 ` Thomas Petazzoni
     [not found]   ` <CANQCQpZ40Q3T2gOPqu8_vGHCTAup_fxgW3ubfYjewfgo7DwW0A@mail.gmail.com>
2017-12-28 23:28     ` Matthew Weber
2017-12-29 13:25   ` Stefan Fröberg
2017-12-29 13:34     ` Stefan Fröberg
2017-12-29 13:42     ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2017-12-29 13:48       ` Stefan Fröberg
2017-12-29 14:04         ` Thomas Petazzoni
2017-12-30  2:34           ` Stefan Fröberg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171229144204.00605c4e@windsurf.lan \
    --to=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox