This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [hurd,commited] hurd: fix build with -fstack-protector-strong libmachuser and libhurduser also need stack_chk_fail_local and they do not link against libc_nonshared. * mach/stack_chk_fail_local.c: New file. * hurd/stack_chk_fail_local.c: New file. * mach/Machrules ($(interface-library)-routines): Add stack_chk_fail_local. * mach/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail. * hurd/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail.
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Samuel Thibault <samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:44:56 +0000
- Subject: Re: [hurd,commited] hurd: fix build with -fstack-protector-strong libmachuser and libhurduser also need stack_chk_fail_local and they do not link against libc_nonshared. * mach/stack_chk_fail_local.c: New file. * hurd/stack_chk_fail_local.c: New file. * mach/Machrules ($(interface-library)-routines): Add stack_chk_fail_local. * mach/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail. * hurd/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20170827201245.g5tfjijpxgmgufqz@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> + * mach/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail.
> + * hurd/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail.
These changes look suspicious. debug/Versions already exports
__stack_chk_fail from libc at version GLIBC_2.4, so I'd expect those new
Versions entries to have no effect (meaning they should be removed as
useless). And any export added at the symbol version for a past release
needs a more detailed justification given, presumably along the lines of
"unmodified glibc 2.4 and later releases have not built or worked for
Hurd, so the de facto GLIBC_2.4 ABI is determined by the binaries people
have actually been using, presumably Debian, which include that symbol at
that version (and, hopefully, have done so ever since Debian packages of
2.4)".
(The missing semicolon at the end of the new Versions entries is also
suspicious; at least, contrary to the syntax normally used in these
files.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com