Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86-64/EFI: add -fno-stack-protector to EFI build

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.08.12 at 15:52, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Otherwise, the build fails due to a missing __stack_chk_fail symbol.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  xen/arch/x86/efi/Makefile | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/efi/Makefile b/xen/arch/x86/efi/Makefile
> index 005e3e0..b727757 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/efi/Makefile
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/efi/Makefile
> @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
> -CFLAGS += -fshort-wchar
> +CFLAGS += -fshort-wchar -fno-stack-protector

It shouldn't be needed here (or else the rest of the Xen build
should fail too). Or where would that symbol magically come
from?

>  obj-y += stub.o
>  
>  create = test -e $(1) || touch -t 199901010000 $(1)
>  
>  efi := $(filter y,$(x86_64)$(shell rm -f disabled))
> -efi := $(if $(efi),$(shell $(CC) -c -Werror check.c 2>disabled && echo y))
> +efi := $(if $(efi),$(shell $(CC) -fno-stack-protector -c -Werror check.c 
> 2>disabled && echo y))

I can see why it might be needed here, albeit I'm curious why
this is not a problem for our builds: Are you having a compiler
in use that had been configured in a non-standard way? Plus
I first want to understand why this special option isn't needed
for the rest of the build tree.

Jan

>  efi := $(if $(efi),$(shell $(LD) -mi386pep --subsystem=10 -o check.efi 
> check.o 2>disabled && echo y))
>  efi := $(if $(efi),$(shell rm disabled)y,$(shell $(call create,boot.init.o); 
> $(call create,runtime.o)))
>  



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel