On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 03:09:40PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
# zgrep STACKPROTECTOR /proc/config.gz
CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR=y
I guess I'm just lucky?
No, I'm just using a gcc built without libc as Segher pointed out:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg113181.html
Right. Tony's compilers are built using a (modified version of) buildall,
and buildall goes out of its way to build without libc whatsoever, even
if the configuration (powerpc64-linux, for example) expects one.
Which leads to TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_SSP being undefined (it would normally
be true for glibc >= 2.4), and that is all. Mystery solved. Thanks!
So my inclination is to revert the powerpc stack protector code for
4.10, and we can try again for 4.11 or 12.
That makes sense. We then wait for the right gcc version? I guess we also
push for per-task gaurd value as opposed to a global one?
Balbir Singh