On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Brian Harring wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:05:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: >> > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles. i dont have a >> >> strong >> >> opinion on that small subset in either direction. >> > >> > So do you agree to make this linker option default to linux x86/amd64 dev/ >> > profiles? >> >> add them or dont add them, "i dont have a [...] opinion [...] in >> either direction". if put to a vote, i'd abstain. > > Possibly a stupid question, but any reason we've not looked at > injecting something that has lower actual affect but can still be used > for a canary? I'm thinking of --build-id specifically...
my gut reaction there is now you're requiring even newer versions of binutils than before, and not just to find ones that support --build-id, but do so without bugs (that's my vague recollection of things; perhaps i'm wrong). and you still wouldnt pass the "not safe outside of Gentoo Linux profiles". also, although the overhead is minor, the build id section would serve no useful purpose that i can think once it has been merged. gnu hash however is always used at runtime. -mike
