On May 10, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Shawn Webb <latt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 2014 02:14 PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> On May 10, 2014, at 10:45 AM, Shawn Webb <latt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey All, >>> >>> It seems that the recent changes to the makefiles for building >>> world/kernel have broken some modifications I have locally for >>> implementing ASLR+PIE. I'm quite the bsd make newbie, so I thought I'd >>> ask for a bit of help. I'm sure the solution is quite simple. >>> >>> My code is up on GitHub. I'll include links at the bottom of the email. >>> >>> The code in question is in share/mk/bsd.prog.mk, where I'm checking to >>> see if MK_PIE is not equal to "no". Prior to the recent changes, this >>> code used to work. (Please note that I know that the way I'm cheking is >>> a bit bloated, if anyone has any suggestions to trim my code down, let >>> me know). >> >> You?ll need to add PIE to DEFAULT_NO_OPTIONS in bsd.opts.mk since >> bsd.*.mk files need it. >> > > Thanks a lot! Adding it to that one worked. > > But what's the difference between the DEFAULT_NO_OPTIONS in src.opts.mk and > bsd.opts.mk?
Options to build FreeBSD’s /usr/src are defined in src.opts.mk. Options tested by bsd.*.mk, which can be used to build other things, are in bsd.opts.mk. >>> How this feature is supposed to work is: >>> 1) PIE is added to the __DEFAULT_NO_OPTIONS to make building >>> applications as position-independent executables opt-in. >>> 2) User adds WITH_PIE=1 to /etc/src.conf or /etc/make.conf >>> 3) The application being built needs to also specify CAN_PIE=1 in its >>> Makefile. This is because some applications don't support being built as >>> a position-independent executable. >>> 4) If MK_PIE is not "no" and CAN_PIE is defined, then add additional >>> CFLAGS. >>> >>> The log from my build is here: http://ix.io/cf0 >>> >>> My code is here: >>> https://github.com/HardenedBSD/hardenedBSD/blob/hardened/current/aslr/share/mk/bsd.prog.mk#L14-L22 >> >> Maybe RESCUE should define NO_SHARED=yes since it is building a >> static binary so you can eliminate a special case that infects the bsd.*.mk >> files >> with defines from our src build? >> > > That sounds like a good idea. Since that's outside the scope of my ASLR > work, should I file a PR for that? Nah, mostly a poke at a 20 year old mistake :) >> Hate that you are propagating the NO_SHARED=no interface, but can?t >> offer at better suggestion at the moment. I?d kinda like to kill that? > > In looking at the Makefiles, it seems like NO_*/YES_* is being phased > out. Once a suitable alternative to NO_SHARED is in place, I'll make > adjustments on my end. Yea, NO_SHARED likely is going to be the last to die :) NO_FOO used to be both a Makefile command and a user option. I’m eliminating the latter, although some of the former may live on. Warner
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail