Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:59:52 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jlh@FreeBSD.org> To: David Carlier <david.carlier@hardenedbsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PIE/PIC support on base Message-ID: <CAGSa5y2=bKpaeLO_S5W%2B1YGq02WMgCZn_5bbEMw%2Bx3j-MYDOoA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAMe1fxaBEc5T77xjpRsMi_kkc5LXwPGooLWTO9C1FJcLSPnO8w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAMe1fxaYn%2BJaKzGXx%2Bywv8F0mKDo72g=W23KUWOKZzpm8wX4Tg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGSa5y3s9r0DRyinfqV=PJc_BT=Em-SLfwhD25nP0=6ki9pHWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMe1fxaBEc5T77xjpRsMi_kkc5LXwPGooLWTO9C1FJcLSPnO8w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:21 PM, David Carlier <david.carlier@hardenedbsd.org> wrote: > > I chose the "atomic" approach, at the moment very few binaries are > concerned at the moment. So I applied INCLUDE_PIC_ARCHIVE in the needed > libraries plus created WITH_PIE which add fPIE/fpie -pie flags only if you > include <bsd.prog.pie.mk> (which include <bsd.prog.mk>...) otherwise other > binaries include <bsd.prog.mk> as usual hence does not apply. Look > reasonable approach ? I think I understand what you mean. But I think PIE is commonplace nowadays and I don't understand what you win by not enabling it for the whole system. Is it a performance concern? Is it to preserve conservative minds from to much change? :) -- Jeremie Le Hen jlh@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGSa5y2=bKpaeLO_S5W%2B1YGq02WMgCZn_5bbEMw%2Bx3j-MYDOoA>