Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 20:45:45 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> Subject: Re: Time to enable partial relro Message-ID: <20160827174544.GC83214@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <f2a1dcc3-0853-6b71-989c-9a29d335a7af@FreeBSD.org> References: <b75890eb-d8bd-759e-002f-ab0c16db0975@FreeBSD.org> <20160826105618.GS83214@kib.kiev.ua> <a9e93c24-9c30-29e4-b949-faa1a7928606@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfrJmYcJHXcXaq0qEiy4qif06SX1LNjUi0g=HG=yp8v4TA@mail.gmail.com> <ae0c18a7-3d9a-708d-bfde-4ce9d6162b76@FreeBSD.org> <FAC00440-3791-480F-AE24-34D2CD6B6312@bsdimp.com> <2e5bee0b-0102-8454-9975-e997bd5229ae@FreeBSD.org> <04514DD6-F431-490D-9ED6-EBFC9DCE97BF@bsdimp.com> <b3e0a564-861b-1719-f2f5-b53d70e90d72@FreeBSD.org> <f2a1dcc3-0853-6b71-989c-9a29d335a7af@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:06:54AM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> On 08/26/16 20:10, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >
> >
> ...>> I think we should move forward, just want to make sure it doesn???t
> >> break some arch completely before moving ahead. While lld is a goal,
> >> the goal is also to have a ld.bdf installed for 12, iirc, as a fallback.
> >
> > And very right you are, this has all the chances of breaking MIPS*:
> >
> > "A configure option --enable-relro={yes|no} to decide
> > whether -z relro should be the default behaviour for
> > the linker in ELF based targets. If this configure
> > option is not specified then relro will be enabled
> > automatically for all Linux based targets except FRV,
> > HPPA, IA64 and MIPS."
> >
> > _____
> >
> > I will update the patch to exclude MIPS (and MIPS64 JIC).
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
> > *https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-08/msg00134.html
> >
>
> Looking more into this, and the arm report from Mark Millard (thanks!),
> binutils has tests for RELRO in their testsuite that would be an
> important indicator before enabling the option.
>
> It surprises me that we don't have an easy way to run those checks from
> the port, so I borrowed the regression-test mode from GCC and I am
> attaching it.
>
> The tests may depend on some gnu-isms but we don't appear to do too
> well on the tests:
>
> === ld Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 511
> # of unexpected failures 78
> # of expected failures 4
> # of unresolved testcases 35
> # of untested testcases 1
> # of unsupported tests 9
> /usr/ports/devel/binutils/work/binutils-2.27/ld/ld-new 2.27
And ? In which way this data is useful or indicative of anything ?
Why this tests are relevant to the proposed change ? AFAIK, binutils
tests typically compare ld output against expected binary.
And, number of the unexpected failures in your showcase is quite worrying.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160827174544.GC83214>