On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 01:47:16PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> Way cool, Chuck. Especially the fact that this tool can also mark >> executables with the TS-aware flag (doesn't make sense for DLLs, afaik). >> This helps to test if setting this flag in Cygwin binaries will >> allow Cygwin to run on 2008 with TS without disabling DEP. > >Well, the tool would need a little tweaking I think. Right now it skips >any image (DLL or exe) that does not contain relocations. > >> If so, I'm wondering if setting the TS-aware flag shouldn't become >> default in GCC. What do you say, Dave? Would that be possible? > >I'd probably wait on that for the /next/ release (e.g. after 4.3.2-2), >so we can get aslr integerated into rebase, and the rebaseall changes >tested. Should I also add a switch to rebaseall that means: ONLY alsr, >NO rebasing. There's already a flag that allows you to add .exe's to >the "rebase" list -- but you can't remove dll's and .so's from the list. > >Maybe the aslr functionality is different enough -- and useful in enough >contexts that differ from rebasing -- that instead of incorporating >'call aslr TOO' into rebaseall, there should be a separate 'aslrall' script?
It should be trivial to add this to binutils. Doesn't it ultimately belong in ld and (maybe) objcopy? I can add this now but I don't think it should be the default just yet. >> That would also allow to drop the ugly TS hack I added to Cygwin 1.7. >> All newly built binaries would have the flag set already, and older >> binaries could be tweaked with the aslr utility. > >That would be nice. However, ONLY exe's linked with cygwin1.dll should >be marked this way, right? Not cygcheck, strace, and whatever other few >exes we might find in the cygwin installation lists. Do the exes themselves need this bit as well as the dlls? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
