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: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 23:58:31 +1000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] __fdelt_chk: Removed range check
- References: <1365900451-19026-1-git-send-email-kosaki dot motohiro at gmail dot com> <1365900451-19026-2-git-send-email-kosaki dot motohiro at gmail dot com> <51807D13 dot 9090706 at redhat dot com> <CAHGf_=oBg-XJ3RmqF_Ox7a3-UWpc0Gg+6LhVfm-sx0PLwjyLXQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51812A69 dot 6000004 at redhat dot com> <51819377 dot 3040403 at gmail dot com> <5183265B dot 8090604 at redhat dot com> <5183BD33 dot 1000607 at suse dot com>
On 03/05/13 23:35, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 05/03/2013 04:52 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 1) If not disabling, Ubuntu/OpenSUSE need to recompile ALL of affected
>>> >packages. Do you suggest to recompile all of them?
>> No. They need only recompile those applications that don't
>> conform to POSIX and expect a Linux-style select with support for
>> fds > 1024. Once recompiled we rely on __bos0 to make the
>> check dynamic, if it doesn't, then the package will need to disable
>> the check with a special fortify source flag.
>>
>> At the end of the day the community has worked hard to enable
>> _FORTIFY_SOURCE. The distributions made a*conscious* choice to
>> turn on these checks. We are doing them a disservice if we disable
>> the checks in glibc because applications are having problems.
>>
>> It was the distribution's choice to enable the check. The package
>> maintainers need to work with the distribution and glibc to understand
>> the issues and fix their code. Nothing is fixed by Ruby calling
>> glibc "wrong" e.g. "the implementation is wrong... it wrongly assume
>> fd is always less than FD_SETSIZE (i.e. 1024)...". It's not wrong,
>> it's POSIX;-)
>>
>>> >Dear Ubuntu and OpenSUSE guys, please tell me your opinion. This patch
>>> >doesn't affect Fedora/RHEL/Debian. So I want to know which is close to
>>> >your desire.
>> Added Andreas and Adam to the TO.
>
> For openSUSE, we would only update glibc for a new release - and
> recompile all packages against this new glibc anyway. So, we should be
> fine.
>
> But this would also affect third-party binary packages that are outside
> of the distribution - and this might be packages that are used on a
> variety of distributions.
Can I check I understand the consequences of this correctly. With this
patch, binaries built against glibc prior to 2.18 will still work, but
any _FORTIFY_SOURCE checks will not be performed until the software is
rebuilt?
It that is correct, it would be annoying in Arch Linux (we have
_FORTIFY_SOURCE in our packaging CPPFLAGS, not hard coded in the
compiler), as our packages are only rebuilt with updates - either to the
software itself or with soname bumps in its dependencies.
Allan