Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:07:50 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: undefined reference to __stack_chk_fail_local (x86) * Matias Fonzo <selk@...gora.org> [2018-09-11 09:27:45 -0300]: > Bootstrapping Dragora (distro) reflects an error trying to build the > kernel headers using musl 1.1.20: > > Running build() ... > UPD include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h > HOSTCC scripts/basic/fixdep > /tmp/ccONBchp.o: In function `read_file': > fixdep.c:(.text+0x12a): undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail_local' > /tmp/ccONBchp.o: In function `main': > fixdep.c:(.text.startup+0x6e2): undefined reference to > `__stack_chk_fail_local' /tools/lib32/gcc/i586-linux-musl/8.2.1/../../../../i586-linux-musl/bin/ld: > scripts/basic/fixdep: hidden symbol `__stack_chk_fail_local' isn't > defined /tools/lib32/gcc/i586-linux-musl/8.2.1/../../../../i586-linux-musl/bin/ld: > final link failed: Bad value collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > make: *** [scripts/Makefile.host:90: scripts/basic/fixdep] Error 1 > make: *** [Makefile:464: scripts_basic] Error 2 Return status = 2 > this happens because on i386 and powerpc gcc emits _local_ calls to __stack_chk_fail_local which means it has to be defined within the same module that you are linking (not in libc.so). (that symbol should either call the extern __stack_chk_fail in libc.so or just crash) this should have been done by libgcc.a having a definition for this symbol (since the compiler is using it), but instead it got added to glibc libc_nonshared.a which is added to the link command by using a linker script in place of libc.so. musl does not want to copy that hack, so the usual workaround is to make gcc pass -lssp_nonshared to the linker when stack-protector is in use and then have a libssp_nonshared.a with the appropriate definition. (this is what alpine linux does) you can also do this manually or disable ssp with -fno-stack-protector, it may also work if a preincluded header declared it as weak so undefined weak reference would just become 0 (and crash at runtime which is the intended behaviour), but i havent tested that. > In this case, the build procedure occurs inside of a temporary system, > where the pieces are replaced one-by-one. I haven't touch the build > procedure in long time, under x86_64 works fine. I haven't see this > error before... > > The current toolchain is: binutils-2.30, GCC-8, musl 1.1.20+ (from > commit ("fix namespace violation for c11 mutex functions", patched using > the patches for the kernel UAPI 4.18). > > Anyone else have tried to compile the kernel headers for x86?. (for > i586, in this case).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.