This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/5] __fdelt_chk: Removed range check
- From: Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>
- To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki dot motohiro at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 08:37:49 +1000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] __fdelt_chk: Removed range check
- References: <CAHGf_=qewv9SqnjRei0NXuODc_ZW0erm5JkBb1r6T+kgGkuK=w at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 04/05/13 04:30, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> In the other words, either disabling or not disabling, we'll get several pains.
>
> 1. If we disable __fdelt_chk and distro doesn't rebuild any packages.
> -> it works. but the packages are no longer protected by FORTIFY
> until rebuilt.
>
> 2. If we don't disable __fdelt_chk and distro doesn't rebuild any packages.
> -> Several software based on Linux extensions still may crash.
> Maybe this is not an option either.
>
> 3. If we disable __fdelt_chk and distro rebuild all packages.
> -> No sense. We don't need disable it if distro agree all rebuild.
>
> 4. If we don't disable __fdelt_chk and distro rebuild cherry
> picked packages.
> -> It works. Affected softwares are expected less than twenty.
> However the remained problem is, nobody know full lists
> of affected packages. And third party software which doesn't
> built still may crash.
>
> Practically, only (1) and (4) are an option. There are no free lunch either.
> Thus, I'd like to ask distro developers.
>
>From that, I'd say the (1) is the only option - although it is still not
ideal... In all other cases, package built against prior glibc may
crash and that is not acceptable.
Allan