[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 5/7] configure: Unnest detection of -z,relro and -z,now
From: |
Thomas Huth |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 5/7] configure: Unnest detection of -z,relro and -z,now |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Dec 2019 19:31:12 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 |
On 18/12/2019 17.58, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 12/17/19 10:11 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> +# Detect support for DT_BIND_NOW.
>>> +if compile_prog "" "-Wl,-z,now" ; then
>>> + LDFLAGS="-Wl,-z,now $LDFLAGS"
>>> +fi
>>> +
>>> +# Detect support for PT_GNU_RELRO.
>>> +if compile_prog "" "-Wl,-z,relro" ; then
>>> + LDFLAGS="-Wl,-z,relro $LDFLAGS"
>>> +fi
>>
>> Looking at
>> https://mudongliang.github.io/2016/07/11/relro-a-not-so-well-known-memory-corruption-mitigation-technique.html
>> the idea of specifying these two options together was likely to get
>> "Full RELRO" instead of only "Partial RELRO".
>
> Sure.
>
>> Thus, does it make sense to have "-Wl,-z,now" without "-Wl,-z,relro" in
>> QEMU? Or should this rather check whether both are possible, then use
>> both, otherwise just try to use "relro" alone?
>
> Honestly, I expect them both to be supported in any binutils.
>
> I split the two tests just because they didn't seem to be logically connected.
> But I had forgotten about, or perhaps never heard, the terms "full" and
> "partial" relro.
>
> I can put them back together with an appropriate comment it you like. One
> less
> thing to run during configure...
Yes, please.
Thanks,
Thomas