From owner-freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Fri Aug 26 16:00:16 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70405B7430D for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:00:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 186B02D7; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:00:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u7QG0AIi033600 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:00:10 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua u7QG0AIi033600 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u7QG0AUT033596; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:00:10 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:00:09 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Pedro Giffuni Cc: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Time to enable partial relro Message-ID: <20160826160009.GU83214@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20160826105618.GS83214@kib.kiev.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on tom.home X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:00:16 -0000 On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:00:58AM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > On 08/26/16 05:56, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:50:31PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >> Hello; > >> > >> GNU RELRO support was committed in r230784 (2012-01-30) but we never > >> enabled it by default. > >> > >> There was some discussion about it on > >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3001 > >> > >> By now, all Linux distributions, NetBSD and DragonFly support it and > >> it is the default for most systems in binutils 2.27. > >> > >> This doesn't affect performance, I ran it through an exp-run last > >> year, no other OS has had issues etc ... seems safe and can be > >> disabled if needed when linking. > > Exp-run does not test anything interesting about relro. If all testing > > that was done is basically just an exp-run, then there was no useful > > runtime testing done. > > > > The exp-run does cover Java and other VM-type thingies that bootstrap. > For upstream binutils this is now the default (at least for linux, > they never ask us if we want to follow). So the change has been tested > extensively but perhaps not on cases that are relevant to us. > > Note that the "fix" for any port is ultimately trivial: > LDFLAGS+= "-z norelro" > > >> > >> I think it's time to enable it be default in our base binutils. If > >> there are no objections, I will just commit the attached patch over > >> the weekend. > > > > There are objections, the change must be runtime tested on large and > > representative set of real-world applications before turning the knob. > > > > You are not giving any hint on what would be a "representative set of > real-world applications". Given that you committed the initial support > your objection stands very high and is a blocker. :( Well, I indeed do not think that 'works on my desktop' is good enough testing for this change. I understand that it is impossible to test all ports at runtime, or even a significant percentage of them, not to mention programs which sit on the user's storage. What actually worries me in the fate of such changes is that submitter never starts monitoring user complains and see whether the change causes some delayed random breakage. It just ends up in the 'BSD is broken' basket with one more supportive case. > > As I see it committing it now would give ample time to test this in > current before it hits any release. If you want more extensive testing > merging it in -stable right after the 11-Release is guaranteed to help > weed out any remaining update ports may need. It is useless 'testing' when the cause of breakage is not actively looked for and identified. You commit it now, five months later some unlucky user reports that his application coredumps. What next ?