Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:16:28 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHSET x86/master] add stack protector support for x86_32 |
| |
Tejun Heo wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> >>> [...] I might not get around testing it today and pushing it out into tip:master, >>> but i pushed out the core/percpu bits, should you queue up further changes. >> ok, activated it for -tip testing, and there's a 64-bit build failure caused by >> it: >> >> arch/x86/kernel/head64.o: In function `x86_64_start_reservations': >> head64.c:(.init.text+0x26): undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard' >> head64.c:(.init.text+0xc2): undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard' >> arch/x86/kernel/head64.o: In function `x86_64_start_kernel': >> head64.c:(.init.text+0x104): undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard' >> head64.c:(.init.text+0x1cd): undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard' >> arch/x86/kernel/head.o: In function `reserve_ebda_region': >> head.c:(.init.text+0xb): undefined reference to `__stack_chk_guard' >> arch/x86/kernel/head.o:head.c:(.init.text+0x87): more undefined references to >> `__stack_chk_guard' follow > > Call to __stack_chk_guard is probably generated automatically. > Strangely, my gcc only generates calls to __stack_chk_fail. > > > gcc --version > gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291] > Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > nm build/vmlinux|grep __stack_chk_ > 00000000f0fdf6cb A __crc___stack_chk_fail > ffffffff80d53e50 r __kcrctab___stack_chk_fail > ffffffff80d5ff81 r __kstrtab___stack_chk_fail > ffffffff80d3d140 r __ksymtab___stack_chk_fail > ffffffff80248619 T __stack_chk_fail > > I'll try other compilers but which version are you using? The > difference is that before the patchset, -fno-stack-protector was > always added whether stackprotector was enabled or not so this problem > wasn't visible (at the cost of bogus stackprotector of course). We'll > probably need to add __stack_chk_guard or disable if gcc generates > such symbol. I'll play with different gccs.
Can't reproduce with gcc-4.1 or 4.2. Any chance you're using distcc w/ a build machine w/ glibc < 2.4? __stack_chk_guard is the symbol gcc fetches stack canary from if TLS is not supported, so somehow gcc thought that TLS wasn't available while building head64.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |