[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: more build problems with "Makefile: move stackprotector availability out of Kconfig"
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Kees Cook <> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Kees Cook <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:
>>>> Hi Kees,
>>>> On my test box, current linux-next kernels fail to build due to the
>>>> patch that introduces CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO, with my mainline
>>>> gcc
>>>> builds up to gcc-5.5.0. gcc-6 and higher work fine, as
>>>> scripts/ returns 'y' for those.
>>>> Using the compilers provided by Ubuntu (4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9), everything
>>>> also works as expected, so my interpretation is that mainline gcc did
>>>> not enable the stack protector until gcc-6, while distributions did.
>>>> Do you agree with that interpretation?
>>> It's probably a little different. I tried bisecting the gcc commit that fixed
>>> the issue for me, and ended up with this commit
>>> that caused the target to change from x86_64-unknown-linux to
>>> x86_64-pc-linux, and apparently caused the compiler bootstrap
>>> to incorrectly identify the capabilities of the assembler. As a result,
>>> the assembler output inside of scripts/
>>> that should be
>>> [snip]
>> Yeah, %gs: vs __stack_chk_guard global.
>> Do you know which gccs (of the past) had this?
>> akpm's build error is different still, there are no warnings at all
>> and then the build fails with missing __stack_chks. I'm still trying
>> to figure that one out.
> Oh, I think I know what's happening. I'm going to try to simulate this
> and send another patch for testing...
> (I'm still curious about the compiler versions, since my gcc 4.4.4
> works fine for stack-protector.)

I've managed to reduce the change that fixed it to this bit in the
compiler sources:

index dbfb978..d5bc694 100755
--- a/config.guess
+++ b/config.guess
@@ -1021,7 +1021,7 @@ EOF
echo ${UNAME_MACHINE}-dec-linux-${LIBC}
exit ;;
- echo ${UNAME_MACHINE}-unknown-linux-${LIBC}
+ echo ${UNAME_MACHINE}-pc-linux-${LIBC}
exit ;;
echo ${UNAME_MACHINE}-unknown-linux-${LIBC}
I still don't know why that makes a difference, but all versions
prior to gcc-6.1 have the problem for me.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-17 17:53    [W:0.049 / U:3.872 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site