On 04/25/12 12:30, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 03/15/2012 05:34 PM, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: >> Hi Bryan >> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:41:07PM -0600, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> Thanks for this patch [1]! >>> >>> I've been building my ports tree with -fstack-protector on FreeBSD 6, 7 >>> and 8. Once I upgraded to 8, I started running into the issue [2] this >>> patch is fixing. >>> >>> I have a situation where non-ports applications are compiling >>> statically, which ran into this. Specifically, the application is >>> linking in security/openssl statically, which of course was compiled >>> with -fstack-protector. Adding the /usr/lib/libc.ld fixed it without >>> needing to hack at the failing non-port application. >>> >>> Would be nice if this, and PR 138228 were finally committed. >>> >>> Bryan Drewery >>> >>> [1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-June/035538.html >>> [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2006-05/msg00092.html >> Wow, the perspective provided by those two posts makes me dizzy. This >> has been a very long standing project. The base system is now compiled >> with SSP, but doing so for ports still requires some manual hacking >> unfortenately. I've proposed a patch to compile ports with SSP a few >> years ago, but some ports with special building strategy suffered the >> problem described in [2]. Then I learned the possibilities of ld >> scripts and provided the patch in [1] last year. >> >> I think we have all the bits necessary to be able to compile ports with >> SSP painlessly. >> >> First the patch in [1] has to be committed in the base system. I think >> this can be done in CURRENT without any problem, I run it myself on my >> own servers without problem. Unfortunately it will probably never appear >> in RELENG_9 because it may be deemed too dangerous to make such a change >> in a stable branch. It would be nice to hear what kib@ and kan@ think >> about this. >> >> Next, the patch to bsd.port.mk in this PR [3] has to be applied to be >> able to compile ports with SSP using a single knob. (Other patches >> along this one can be thrown away, they were required hacks back when >> the libc ld script didn't exist.) Then portmgr@ will naturally want to >> make a full port build with this knob turned on to check, but last time >> I was told they had very few resource and that this couldn't be >> scheduled in the next couple of week, IIRC. >> >> I admit the situation is partly my fault, because I did the fun >> technical work but I didn't keep up with the "lobbying" part :). >> I asked once or twice, without success, and then went to other subjects. >> >> I would be really glad if we could proceed with this. FreeBSD-9.0 has >> just been release, this is probably a good time to step forward. >> >> [3] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/138228 >> >> Cheers, > Something to keep an eye on is that some ports may run `file > /usr/lib/libc.so` and find that it is an ASCII text file. > > As I've mentioned, I've been running with SSP in my ports for at least a > year now, and with this ld script for several months. > > The only issue I've ran into is the security/openssl port is looking at > /usr/lib/libc.so to see if it is ELF or not, and due to this is falling > back on a.out binary format and then generating incorrect ASM. I think > this is going to be a pretty rare and specific case though. > > Regards, > Bryan Drewery > Any reason not to use -fstack-protector-all as opposed to -fstack-protector? I've been using this on all ports for quite a while, I don't usually run into problems that make me need to revert to stock cflags. I don't use ports OpenSSL so that's maybe why I've escaped.
Matt _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
