| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How long until hardened and toolchain will produce a hardened gcc4? |
| 1 year |
|
23% |
[ 40 ] |
| 5 years |
|
20% |
[ 35 ] |
| 10 years |
|
7% |
[ 13 ] |
| lifetime |
|
4% |
[ 8 ] |
| eternity |
|
44% |
[ 76 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 172 |
|
| Author |
Message |
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Xake wrote: |
That is my overlay. I am about to drop toolchain-funcs.eclass now, and next step is to try updating for FORTIFY_SOURCES I think.
I think I am going to adjust piepatch to make gcc compile with it by default, and then have specs to disable it (something like -fstack-protector works currently). I do not know if we really need the nofortify.spec, but it could be nice to be able to disable it if we suspect it to break things.
Edit: Or maybe I should try port piepatches to gcc-4.3 first. I have not yet decided... Something tells me I maybe should wait for gcc-4.3.1, but then again... It is always funny with a new compiler. |
Make the gcc compile vanila + pie patch and use minispaces to enable ssp pie fortify.... thet it what i tring to do. We don't need to patch gcc so match then.
PATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
ROOTPATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
GCC_PATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
LDPATH="/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3:/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/32"
MANPATH="/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/man"
INFOPATH="/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/info"
STDCXX_INCDIR="g++-v4"
GCC_SPECS="/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/pie:sspall:ssp:fortify:znow:zrelro"
We try to get the toolchain working before 4.3? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Xake
Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zorry wrote: | You can remove support of eselect-compiler see #139918
Make it support ssp patches if we need it later. |
Are going to take care of the eselect-compiler-stuff.
What sort of ssp patches do you have in mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xake
Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zorry wrote: | Make the gcc compile vanila + pie patch and use minispaces to enable ssp pie fortify.... thet it what i tring to do. We don't need to patch gcc so match then.
PATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
ROOTPATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
GCC_PATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
LDPATH="/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3:/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/32"
MANPATH="/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/man"
INFOPATH="/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/info"
STDCXX_INCDIR="g++-v4"
GCC_SPECS="/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/pie:sspall:ssp:fortify:znow:zrelro"
|
So you are trying to do the opposite of what kevquinns overlay are doing (i.e. vanilla with hardened added by specs and not by patches)?
| zorry wrote: |
We try to get the toolchain working before 4.3? |
I think we should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xake
Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Should we really ditch eselect compiler support? They have left it inside gentoo, and currently it does not break anything. I tend to have things as close to gentoo as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xake wrote: | | Should we really ditch eselect compiler support? They have left it inside gentoo, and currently it does not break anything. I tend to have things as close to gentoo as possible. |
Eselect-compiler is not i portage any more.
No one is mantin it now. Kevquinn did the work before.
Will it be added to portage in a later stage i don't no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xake wrote: | | What sort of ssp patches do you have in mind? |
Pappay's SSPX patch or gcc 4.3 maybe need somting. It wood be good to have it working if we need to patch it som time later so we don't need to chain the toolchain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xake
Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zorry wrote: | | Xake wrote: | | What sort of ssp patches do you have in mind? |
Pappay's SSPX patch or gcc 4.3 maybe need somting. It wood be good to have it working if we need to patch it som time later so we don't need to chain the toolchain. |
I have yet to see his SSPx-patch... Where is it?
The problem may be to ensure full functionality of the patcher without a patch to try it on. But I can give it a shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xake
Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zorry wrote: | | Xake wrote: | | Should we really ditch eselect compiler support? They have left it inside gentoo, and currently it does not break anything. I tend to have things as close to gentoo as possible. |
Eselect-compiler is not i portage any more.
No one is mantin it now. Kevquinn did the work before.
Will it be added to portage in a later stage i don't no. |
I have had my thoughts about breaking out the support for GCC-4.0 also and just concentrate on the gcc-4.2/4.3 things just to mak the patch-size smaller. But maybe removing eselect-support would easy up things... Well, I may give it a try later today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xake wrote: | | zorry wrote: | | Xake wrote: | | What sort of ssp patches do you have in mind? |
Pappay's SSPX patch or gcc 4.3 maybe need somting. It wood be good to have it working if we need to patch it som time later so we don't need to chain the toolchain. |
I have yet to see his SSPx-patch... Where is it?
The problem may be to ensure full functionality of the patcher without a patch to try it on. But I can give it a shot. |
Have not see the SSPx-patch.
Just make a file with a ssp dir and patch in the dir.
Filename: gcc-4.2.3-ssp-0.1.tar.bz2
Patch: gcc-4.2.3-ssp.patch
Ebuild: add PP_VER="0.1" and PP_GCC_VER="4.2.3"
To test it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xake wrote: | | zorry wrote: | Make the gcc compile vanila + pie patch and use minispaces to enable ssp pie fortify.... thet it what i tring to do. We don't need to patch gcc so match then.
PATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
ROOTPATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
GCC_PATH="/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3"
LDPATH="/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3:/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/32"
MANPATH="/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/man"
INFOPATH="/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/info"
STDCXX_INCDIR="g++-v4"
GCC_SPECS="/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/pie:sspall:ssp:fortify:znow:zrelro"
|
So you are trying to do the opposite of what kevquinns overlay are doing (i.e. vanilla with hardened added by specs and not by patches)?
| zorry wrote: |
We try to get the toolchain working before 4.3? |
I think we should. |
We can do the kevquinns way and build it hardened from the start.
Just tring to make the patchset small. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gcc vanilla
sandra / # gcc -v
Läser specifikationer från /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/specs
Läser specifikationer från /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/vanilla.specs
Läser specifikationer från /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/nopie.specs
Läser specifikationer från /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/nossp.specs
Läser specifikationer från /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/nosspall.specs
Läser specifikationer från /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/nozrelro.specs
Läser specifikationer från /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/noznow.specs
Mål: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Konfigurerad med: /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3-r1/work/gcc-4.2.3/configure --prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3 --includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/include --datadir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3 --mandir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/man --infodir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/info --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/include/g++-v4 --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --disable-altivec --enable-nls --without-included-gettext --with-system-zlib --disable-checking --disable-werror --enable-secureplt --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-multilib --enable-libmudflap --disable-libssp --disable-libgcj --enable-languages=c,c++,treelang --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --with-bugurl=https://bugs.gentoo.org/ --with-pkgversion=Gentoo Hardened 4.2.3-r1, ssp-builtin, pie-9.0.7
Trådmodell: posix
gcc version 4.2.3 (Gentoo Hardened 4.2.3-r1, ssp-builtin, pie-9.0.7)
sandra / #
Still som bugs with minispaces |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
void buffer_overflow() {
long int val = 0;
char str[29];
for (val = 0; val < 50; val++) {
str[val] = 'a';
}
printf("%s\n", str);
}
int main ()
{
buffer_overflow();
exit (0);
}
sandra / # gcc -o test test.c
sandra / # ./test
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa▒▒
*** stack smashing detected ***: test - terminated
test: stack smashing attack in function <unknown> - terminated
Report to https://bugs.gentoo.org/
Killed
sandra / # gcc -v
Läser specifikationer från /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/specs
Mål: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Konfigurerad med: /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.2.3-r1/work/gcc-4.2.3/configure --prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.2.3 --includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/include --datadir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3 --mandir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/man --infodir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/info --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.3/include/g++-v4 --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --disable-altivec --enable-nls --without-included-gettext --with-system-zlib --disable-checking --disable-werror --enable-secureplt --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-multilib --enable-libmudflap --disable-libssp --disable-libgcj --enable-languages=c,c++,treelang --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu --with-bugurl=https://bugs.gentoo.org/ --with-pkgversion=Gentoo Hardened 4.2.3-r1, ssp-builtin, pie-9.0.7
Trådmodell: posix
gcc version 4.2.3 (Gentoo Hardened 4.2.3-r1, ssp-builtin, pie-9.0.7)
sandra / # |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YAY! Well done zorry! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How are we going to add -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 to the specs file?
Somthing like this?
File: gcc.c
#define CC1_HARDENED_SPEC " %{!D__KERNEL__: %(cc1_pie) %(cc1_ssp) %(cc1_fofy) }"
File: fortify.specs
*cc1_fofy:
%{!U_FORTIFY_SOURCE:-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2}
File: nofortify.specs
*cc1_fofy:
Will it work?
Need som help with this.
Edit: minispece i working now for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | YAY! Well done zorry! |
thanks  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Working on getting -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 to work and updating pie-patch.
Any one have test code to test it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Playing with spece file for FORTIFY_SOUCE.
sandra / # paxtest blackhat
PaXtest - Copyright(c) 2003,2004 by Peter Busser <peter@adamantix.org>
Released under the GNU Public Licence version 2 or later
Writing output to paxtest.log
It may take a while for the tests to complete
*** buffer overflow detected ***: /usr/lib64/paxtest/rettofunc1 terminated
...
Return to function (strcpy) : Killed
Return to function (memcpy) : Killed
Return to function (strcpy, RANDEXEC) : Killed
Return to function (memcpy, RANDEXEC) : Killed
Need to update toolchain-funcs.eclass and flag-o-matic.eclass to support flitring of FORTIFY.
spece filehttp://www.ume.nu/~zorry/filer/specs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xake
Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zorry wrote: | Working on getting -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 to work and updating pie-patch.
Any one have test code to test it? |
Sorry for being absent. i have had some issues IRL to take care of and will not have time to really look deep into this before the weekend (and probably not then either).
Just wanted to tell that my initial testings of FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 (i.e. adding it to CFLAGS) looks nice, but it does not compile glibc. So we need easy way to disable when testing, and patch glibc (there is a patch from jakub@redhat on libc mailinglist if you search for readlinkat and FORTIFY, but is does not apply celanly).
When it comes to what should be by default I think it should work like kevquinns does (and hardened in gentoo seems to do currently for <=gcc-3.x) and that is: compile it without USE="hardened" and you will be vanilla by default, but able to build things with SSP and PIE by selecting it with gcc-config (it does so even with gcc-3.x, right?)
and if built with USE="hardened", then have hardened by default and possibility to choose not to use PIE/SSP with gcc-config.
When I come home I will take a look at what differs your eclass from mine, and see if there is any questions I may have.
Have you looked at my ebuilds/eclass yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xake wrote: | | zorry wrote: | Working on getting -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 to work and updating pie-patch.
Any one have test code to test it? |
Sorry for being absent. i have had some issues IRL to take care of and will not have time to really look deep into this before the weekend (and probably not then either).
Just wanted to tell that my initial testings of FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 (i.e. adding it to CFLAGS) looks nice, but it does not compile glibc. So we need easy way to disable when testing, and patch glibc (there is a patch from jakub@redhat on libc mailinglist if you search for readlinkat and FORTIFY, but is does not apply celanly).
When it comes to what should be by default I think it should work like kevquinns does (and hardened in gentoo seems to do currently for <=gcc-3.x) and that is: compile it without USE="hardened" and you will be vanilla by default, but able to build things with SSP and PIE by selecting it with gcc-config (it does so even with gcc-3.x, right?)
and if built with USE="hardened", then have hardened by default and possibility to choose not to use PIE/SSP with gcc-config.
When I come home I will take a look at what differs your eclass from mine, and see if there is any questions I may have.
Have you looked at my ebuilds/eclass yet? |
My toolchain behave as gcc-3.x now. but not tested on gcc-3.x
Okey can take a look on glibc bug ween i have fix the filtring of FORTIFY in toolchain.
Yes i have taken a look on ebuild/eclass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any code to test flitring in the toolchain ?
Are we only going to support fortify_source=2 or even 0 and 1? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xake
Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zorry wrote: | My toolchain behave as gcc-3.x now. but not tested on gcc-3.x
Okey can take a look on glibc bug ween i have fix the filtring of FORTIFY in toolchain. |
Have had the time to look at eclasses, and so far it seems like there is not much difference (the main being mine still have gcc-4.0.x-cruft, and eselect-cruft left, but that will be removed in my next push - that is when I am psyically at my desktop again).
I start to think I should leave the specs to you and maybe head for making a nice patch for glibc when I have the time...
| zorry wrote: | Any code to test flitring in the toolchain ?
Are we only going to support fortify_source=2 or even 0 and 1? |
Filter what? Flags or you have something else in mind?
0 seems to be the same as having it unset. 1 seems to be checks that should not break programs. 2 can break bad code (but should not break good).
Still I think we only need the option of having 2 or having it unset, as other distributions seems to think 2 is a good option too.
Why I mainly think this option should be existing is that it could be good to have the possibility to filter-flags changeing spec like it does currently (at least in kevquinns overlay). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Filter what? Flags or you have something else in mind?
0 seems to be the same as having it unset. 1 seems to be checks that should not break programs. 2 can break bad code (but should not break good).
Still I think we only need the option of having 2 or having it unset, as other distributions seems to think 2 is a good option too.
Why I mainly think this option should be existing is that it could be good to have the possibility to filter-flags changeing spec like it does currently (at least in kevquinns overlay). |
Fix flags to support fortify in flag-o-metic.
Okey will fix specs file to only support 2 and unset it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have gott fliter flags working for fortify.
Uppdated glibc to filter-flags -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
ebuild
Unpack: OK
Compile: OK
Install: OK
Will try to sort out the fortify bug in glibc so it can be built with fortify.
http://www.ume.nu/~zorry/filer/Gentoo-hardened/ for files.
Only tested on x86_64 (amd64)
Any one try to fix toolchain.eclass so it work for 3.x without minispaces.
Next step to do? build toolchain and se if it don't brek anyting and try emerge -e system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorry
Developer
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bug glibc-2.7-r2 fortify
build-x86-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/debug/getwd_chk.o -MD -MP -MF /var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r3/work/build-x86-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/debug/getwd_chk.o.dt -MT /var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r3/work/build-x86-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/debug/getwd_chk.o
readlinkat_chk.c:26: error: conflicting types for '__readlinkat_chk'
../posix/bits/unistd.h:159: error: previous declaration of '__readlinkat_chk' was here
readlink_chk.c:29: error: conflicting types for '__readlink_chk'
../posix/bits/unistd.h:127: error: previous declaration of '__readlink_chk' was here
make[2]: *** [/var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r3/work/build-x86-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/debug/readlinkat_chk.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[2]: *** [/var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r3/work/build-x86-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/debug/readlink_chk.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r3/work/glibc-2.7/debug'
make[1]: *** [debug/subdir_lib] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r3/work/glibc-2.7'
make: *** [all] Error 2
*
* ERROR: sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r3 failed.
* Call stack:
* ebuild.sh, line 49: Called src_compile
* environment, line 3343: Called eblit-run 'src_compile'
* environment, line 1077: Called eblit-glibc-src_compile
* src_compile.eblit, line 168: Called src_compile
* environment, line 3343: Called eblit-run 'src_compile'
* environment, line 1077: Called eblit-glibc-src_compile
* src_compile.eblit, line 179: Called toolchain-glibc_src_compile
* src_compile.eblit, line 122: Called die
* The specific snippet of code:
* make PARALLELMFLAGS="${MAKEOPTS}" || die "make for ${ABI} failed"
* The die message:
* make for x86 failed
*
* If you need support, post the topmost build error, and the call stack if relevant.
* A complete build log is located at '/var/log/portage/sys-libs:glibc-2.7-r3:20080427-004446.log'.
* The ebuild environment file is located at '/var/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r3/temp/environment'.
* This ebuild used the following eclasses from overlays:
* /usr/local/portage/eclass/toolchain-funcs.eclass
* /usr/local/portage/eclass/flag-o-matic.eclass
* This ebuild is from an overlay: '/usr/local/portage/'
*
sandra ~ #
Any on vanilla gcc-4.2.3 and glibc-2.7 thet can test to add -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 to CFLAGS
if it hit the bug to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
