From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42L6CG30fFzF3LK for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 04:38:33 +1000 (AEST) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:37:44 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Christophe LEROY Cc: Russell Currey , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Andrew Donnellan , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc/64: add stack protector support Message-ID: <20180926173744.GN23155@gate.crashing.org> References: <2b934594d21ade67a4092637cf9e6b7d2d131187.1537801613.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> <0797fc91-6400-2508-1cc0-4bba78aafbbb@c-s.fr> <30fb4e6b-0981-c53c-a1db-94138eaad268@c-s.fr> <20180926092806.GM23155@gate.crashing.org> <284752d1-6c32-bdca-72d3-4d8616b26fbf@c-s.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <284752d1-6c32-bdca-72d3-4d8616b26fbf@c-s.fr> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:41:26AM +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote: > Le 26/09/2018 à 11:28, Segher Boessenkool a écrit : > >On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 09:58:30AM +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote: > >>Segher, any idea about this problem ? > > > >>>>arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/bootx_init.o: In function > >>>>`bootx_printf': > >>>>/var/lib/jenkins-slave/workspace/snowpatch/snowpatch-linux- > >>>>sparse/linux/arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/bootx_init.c:88: > >>>>undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail_local' > > > >Are you building as PIC? Are you linking libssp_nonshared.a? Why not? > > Spotted, thanks. > > arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/Makefile contains: > > CFLAGS_bootx_init.o += -fPIC > > Does it mean we should add -lssp_nonshared to LDFLAGS_vmlinux ? Something like that. > Or maybe stack protection on bootx_init doesn't make much sense and we > could just do the following ? > > CFLAGS_bootx_init.o += -fPIC $(call cc-option, > -fno-stack-protector) But more likely this. Why does it use -fPIC? If it is only boot-time init (which the name suggests) then disabling ssp makes a lot of sense. Segher