lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: more build problems with "Makefile: move stackprotector availability out of Kconfig"
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> 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/gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh 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
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.indel.ch/thirdparty/gcc/commit/c14bac81551d6769741c2b1cc55e04d94fe8d3a7
>>>>
>>>> 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/gcc-x86_64-has-stack-protector.sh
>>>> 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 ;;
> x86_64:Linux:*:*)
> - echo ${UNAME_MACHINE}-unknown-linux-${LIBC}
> + echo ${UNAME_MACHINE}-pc-linux-${LIBC}
> exit ;;
> xtensa*:Linux:*:*)
> 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.

What happens if you add -mstack-protector-guard=tls ?

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-17 20:27    [W:0.078 / U:0.872 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site