Re: Enabling PIE by default for Stretch

Bálint Réczey <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.ports.amd64
Message-ID <CAK0Odpxg6OuX3eE9sXMpdi701fw8MBt5nh6zipZJypFCReFoDA__20012.0041649372$1476102420$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Maximiliano,

2016-10-10 14:21 GMT+02:00 Maximiliano Curia <[email protected]>:
> ¡Hola Niels!
>
> El 2016-10-10 a las 05:44 +0000, Niels Thykier escribió:
>>
>> Niels Thykier:
>>>
>>> As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for
>>> PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures!  * It is a
>>> substantial hardening feature  * Upstream has vastly reduced the performance
>>> penalty for x86  * The majority of all porters believe their release
>>> architecture is    ready for it.  * We have sufficient time to solve any
>>> issues or revert if it turns out    to be too problematic.
>
>
>>> [...]
>
>
>>>  * Deadline for major concerns:  Fri, 7th of October 2016.
>
>
>> It appears that there were no major concerns.  I will follow up #835148
>> and request PIE by default for the following architectures.
>
>
>> * amd64 * arm64 * armel * armhf * i386 * mips * mips64el * mipsel *
>> ppc64el * s390x
>
>
> Such a change will produce unneeded FTBFS's in libraries using -fPIC (such
> as qt5 and all it's dependencies).
>
> Afaik, -fPIC is stronger than -fPIE, at the same time, -fPIE is incompatible
> with -fPIC and -fPIE makes little sense in shared libraries.
>
> And while a single patch should be trivial, I fear they would be many
> specific ones.

Have you seen the results of the test-rebuild performed with the
changed defaults?

I have put together a page with related links and information where
you can find the rebuild results, too:

 https://wiki.debian.org/Hardening/PIEByDefaultTransition

Cheers,
Balint
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.