Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:05:31 +0100 From: Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> To: shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Question regarding crunchgen(1) binaries Message-ID: <202404150105.43F15VoL068210@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> In-Reply-To: <erhqcnky6qf4adlupgtszkmrihthbdc2tbwtbhgzyltl3pl42c@gsdzinackzhh> References: <erhqcnky6qf4adlupgtszkmrihthbdc2tbwtbhgzyltl3pl42c@gsdzinackzhh>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org> wrote: > 1. Enhance crunchgen(1) to support libc built with LTO. > 2. Kick crunchgen(1) to the curb. > 3. Other ideas from the community are possible. > > Does anyone find crunchgen(1) to be truly useful in 2024? If we kick > crunchgen(1) to the curb, we need to modify the build system for > /rescue binaries. Please note, my response is not considering the security aspects you raise, and is only based on the usefulness of /rescue itself. Do you mean get rid of /rescue, or just getting rid of crunchgen producing it? I've been "rescued" by rescue on more than one location - usually systems that won't mount /usr and also have a screwed up lib. I wouldn't want to see a static /rescue disappear, and the size would probably be too large for individual binaries. Cheers, Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202404150105.43F15VoL068210>