On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 03:09:40PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes: > > > # zgrep STACKPROTECTOR /proc/config.gz > > CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y > > CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y > > CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_REGULAR=y > > > > I guess I'm just lucky? > > No, I'm just using a gcc built without libc as Segher pointed out: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg113181.html > > Right. Tony's compilers are built using a (modified version of) buildall, > and buildall goes out of its way to build without libc whatsoever, even > if the configuration (powerpc64-linux, for example) expects one. > > Which leads to TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_SSP being undefined (it would normally > be true for glibc >= 2.4), and that is all. Mystery solved. Thanks! > > > So my inclination is to revert the powerpc stack protector code for > 4.10, and we can try again for 4.11 or 12. >
That makes sense. We then wait for the right gcc version? I guess we also push for per-task gaurd value as opposed to a global one? Balbir Singh
