On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:39:50PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>
> The most obvious way how the non-fPIE case could theoretically work would be
> having
> such text relocations for main executable; without them you can't expect
> things
> to work without special tricks.
Yes, and I expect the tool
Kurt Roeckx roeckx.be> writes:
> > > > > As far as I understand things, this is supposed to work, and might
> > > >
> > > > It cannot work in the usual setup. Relocations are not supported for
> > > > the main binary even on platforms that support them for shared
> > > > libraries.
> > >
> > > I
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09:41AM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Anyway, the C standard says that there is a requirement that
> > both the DSO itself as all other objects must be able to take
> > the address of it and still get the same pointer. And this
> > obviously fails in your example.
>
> Y
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:09:44PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-02-14, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > It was always my understanding that protected wasn't useful,
> > because it's even more expensive.
>
> Can you come with a bit pointers or numbers about 'expensive' ?
So as far as I understand t
Kurt Roeckx roeckx.be> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:17:09PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx roeckx.be> writes:
> > > It was always my understanding that protected wasn't useful,
> > > because it's even more expensive.
> >
> > Sounds like your understanding was wrong. Protected
On 2012-02-14, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Hi Application Manager :)
(My response here includes some questions from my upstream who I showed
this mail)
> It was always my understanding that protected wasn't useful,
> because it's even more expensive.
Can you come with a bit pointers or numbers about 'e
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:17:09PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx roeckx.be> writes:
> > > What affects the ABI is compiling the library in a way that does not
> > > support
> > > copy relocations. This can be done with visibility attributes or linker
>
> > It was always my understandin
Kurt Roeckx roeckx.be> writes:
> > What affects the ABI is compiling the library in a way that does not support
> > copy relocations. This can be done with visibility attributes or linker
> It was always my understanding that protected wasn't useful,
> because it's even more expensive.
Sounds li
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:29:23PM +, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx roeckx.be> writes:
> > So my understanding is that you want to build libraries with -fPIE
> > instead of -fPIC, and that that creates a different ABI?
>
> What affects the ABI is compiling the library in a way that does no
Kurt Roeckx roeckx.be> writes:
> So my understanding is that you want to build libraries with -fPIE
> instead of -fPIC, and that that creates a different ABI?
What affects the ABI is compiling the library in a way that does not support
copy relocations. This can be done with visibility attributes
On 2012-02-13, Russ Allbery wrote:
> No, I think only executables would be built PIE. Libraries would continue
> to be built PIC
Correct.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Arch
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:06:27PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> One of my upstreams of a collection of shared libraries is about to
>> make a change that is going to require all executables built against
>> these shared libraries to be built with -fPIE (and libraries with
>
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:06:27PM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> Hi
>
> One of my upstreams of a collection of shared libraries is about to make
> a change that is going to require all executables built against these
> shared libraries to be built with -fPIE (and libraries with -fPIC).
>
> Is ther
Simon McVittie writes:
> I investigated this for D-Bus (which builds a security-sensitive daemon,
> dbus-daemon, and a library, libdbus). It turns out that libtool is
> clever enough to replace -fPIE with -fPIC -DPIC when compiling objects
> that will go in a shared library, and omit -pie when li
> "RA" == Russ Allbery writes:
RA> That's the main reason why I'm not sure prelinking is worth it; I'll
RA> take the speed hit from using non-prelinked binaries in exchange for
RA> verifiable checksums.
The last time prelinking came up on the Gentoo lists, those who had done
some benchmarkin
On 29/01/12 23:25, Russ Allbery wrote:
> For PIE, the main practical problem with PIE is that PIE and PIC conflict,
> so you can't just add -fPIE to the compiler flags of a package that builds
> both executables and libraries.
I investigated this for D-Bus (which builds a security-sensitive daemon
Sune Vuorela writes:
> One of my upstreams of a collection of shared libraries is about to make
> a change that is going to require all executables built against these
> shared libraries to be built with -fPIE (and libraries with -fPIC).
> Is there anything I should be aware of?
First, the bit
17 matches
Mail list logo
