This is the mail archive of the
libc-help@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: inlining failed
- From: Nix <nix at esperi dot org dot uk>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- Cc: Dominik Táborský <bremby at seznam dot cz>, libc-help at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:02:10 +0000
- Subject: Re: inlining failed
- References: <1227974019.24048.32.camel@eddy> <87wsemclqi.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix><119aab440811291304o2c929d3bw9fb3c05c2a814a6b@mail.gmail.com><87skpacjsb.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix><119aab440811291357h4689c400ka112d66b235154de@mail.gmail.com>
On 29 Nov 2008, Carlos O'Donell spake thusly:
> Your patch has a lot of problems, but I like the idea.
>
> Issues:
> 1. There should be a configure switch to enable the use of libssp with glibc.
> 2. Conditionalize or use a variable to represent -lssp should be used.
> 3. Use lib_cv_ssp which is checked?
All done, I think: in bz as #7065. See what you think.
#7066 covers the buffer overrun.
In his typical utterly charmless fashion Ulrich WONTFIXed it with a
blunt one-liner before I even had time to attach the patch. I don't care
what Ulrich thinks of it, really, as far as I can tell he hates
everything.
Perhaps some distros will be interested in it.
>> (I also assumed that every distro out there had probably done something
>> like this, until I checked and found that a lot of them just force off
>> stack protection for all of libc. Since only ld.so is really allergic to
>> it, this is excessive.)
>
> Development gets done whenever and wherever a developer submits a patch :-)
And it never gets upstreamed because to a first approximation Ulrich
always says no to everything? As far as I can tell the glibc that
distros actually use has so many (shared) patches attached that it may
as well be considered a semi-fork, which is rather sad really. (Debian
has around 180 patches right now, for instance.)
>>> Could you also submit this to eglibc? Embedded targets could make good
>>> use of this.
>>> (patches@eglibc.org http://www.eglibc.org/mailing_lists)
>>
>> I'll attach/submit once I've updated the patch to 2.9, probably
>> tomorrow.
>
> Thanks!
I tested it to death first (test results attached to the bug as well).
> Thanks again.
You're welcome :)