* Mike Frysinger via Libc-alpha: > On 24 Oct 2022 13:12, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: >> * Samuel Thibault: >> > Florian Weimer, le lun. 24 oct. 2022 12:11:03 +0200, a ecrit: >> >> * Samuel Thibault: >> >> >> >> > Is it not possible to make -static -pie get the same behavior? That'd be >> >> > way more orthogonal for people to understand. >> >> >> >> I think you want -static to mean -static-pie if GCC defaults to PIE, >> >> right? >> > >> > That would actually provide the pie benefit automatically for all >> > static executable, yes. Otherwise static pie will be a nice thing, but >> > not actually largely used in practice. And most people won't actually >> > realize it. >> >> That's true. >> >> Fedora uses a specs file fragment that turns -static into -static-pie >> under certain conditions. >> >> >> That will break a few things that use gcc -static to build binaries for >> >> quasi-bare-metal targets using the GNU ELF toolchain (where glibc's >> >> startup code is not use). >> > >> > But then the piece which is saying that glibc's startup code is not in >> > use can be fixed into not using static-pie, can't it? >> >> In theory, yes. How hard it will be depends on the specs file change >> for --enable-default-pie. > > i don't see a problem with -static DTRT. people abusing a compiler for a > target it wasn't designed for means they get the pieces. it's not like > they're using -static in the first place to pull in the C library & gcc > internal libs (which also depend/assume the corresponding OS & C lib). > > plus, -static -no-pie would get you back to a non-PIE static binary.
The last part depends on the specs file, it has to be put there explicitly I think. And perhaps -Wl,-no-pie as well? Maybe also do -no-pie implicitly with -static -nostartfiles? Thanks, Florian
