12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758 |
- From 7b93e98143c376ed09bfd30658b8641d4a36e77e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
- From: Rodrigo Rebello <rprebello@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:04:28 -0200
- Subject: [PATCH] configure: use appropriate code fragment for
- -fstack-protector checks
- Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org
- The check for stack-protector support consisted in compiling and linking
- the test program below (output by function write_c_skeleton()) with the
- compiler flag -fstack-protector-strong first and then with
- -fstack-protector-all if the first one failed to work:
- int main(void) { return 0; }
- This caused false positives when using certain toolchains in which the
- compiler accepts -fstack-protector-strong but no support is provided by
- the C library, since in this stack-protector variant the compiler emits
- canary code only for functions that meet specific conditions (local
- arrays, memory references to local variables, etc.) and the code
- fragment under test included none of them (hence no stack protection
- code generated, no link failure).
- This fix modifies the test program used for -fstack-protector checks to
- meet conditions which cause the compiler to generate canary code in all
- variants.
- Upstream status: sent
- https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/543357/
- Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Rebello <rprebello@gmail.com>
- ---
- configure | 10 ++++++++++
- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
- diff --git a/configure b/configure
- index cd219d8..27d7b3c 100755
- --- a/configure
- +++ b/configure
- @@ -1471,6 +1471,16 @@ for flag in $gcc_flags; do
- done
-
- if test "$stack_protector" != "no"; then
- + cat > $TMPC << EOF
- +int main(int argc, char *argv[])
- +{
- + char arr[64], *p = arr, *c = argv[0];
- + while (*c) {
- + *p++ = *c++;
- + }
- + return 0;
- +}
- +EOF
- gcc_flags="-fstack-protector-strong -fstack-protector-all"
- sp_on=0
- for flag in $gcc_flags; do
- --
- 2.1.4
|