[lsb-discuss] LSBCC and -fstack-protector

Dallman, John john.dallman at siemens.com
Thu Apr 14 17:36:48 UTC 2016

Mats wrote:

> it's something we'll have to look into.  Like I said, I don't quite remember the
> details - my memory hints that there were some non-LSB symbols emitted if you go
> the stack protector route, and they'd need to make an appearance in an LSB version
> to be usable, if so.  It's not technically a complex issue if that's the case,
> but logistically... will there be an LSB update that could do this?

OK. Is there anything I should do? Open a bug, or something?

I'm a bit concerned by the question "will there be an LSB update that could do this?" Things seem to have been very quiet on LSB for a while: is the project in danger of shutting down?

> The somewhat more complicated issue is that the stack canary code messes with the
> ABI, as it modifies the stack frame.

I don't know that much about ABIs, but is this a problem? Presumably one can call stack-protected code from non-stack-protected code, and vice-versa? Does it affect the traceback system or other debugger functionality?

> As to the technical question you raise above, I'm a little surprised at the output,
> the dumb code that tries to make decisions based on gcc version doesn't even know
> about gcc 5.x, and so avoids returning a value indicating it's a gcc 4 compiler.
> Of course it isn't a gcc 4, but that check should really be gcc-4-or-later.

I thought it might be something like that.

> Any gcc5 compiler used with lsbcc is "uncharted waters".



John Dallman
Siemens Industry Software Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales.
Registered number: 3476850.
Registered office: Faraday House, Sir William Siemens Square, Frimley, Surrey, GU16 8QD.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list