[ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Corinna Vinschen]

Hi folks,


I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 2.10.0-0.1

I'm planning for a release end of January.  Please test.

=======================================================================

What's new:
-----------

- New open(2) flags O_TMPFILE and O_NOATIME.

- scanf/wscanf now handle the POSIX %m modifier.

- scanf now handles the %l[ conversion.

- New APIs: sigtimedwait, wmempcpy.


Bug Fixes
---------

- Fix a problem in unlink on NFS.
  Addresses: Shows up in GAWK testsuite test "testext"

- Fix errno setting bug in posix_fadvise and posix_fallocate.
  Addresses: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2017-q4/msg00026.html

- Fix two bugs in the limit of large numbers of sockets.
  Addresses: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-11/msg00052.html

- Fix a fork failure with private anonymous mmaps.
  Addresses: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-12/msg00061.html

- Remove a call to fflush from ftell{o}, which may result in wrong offsets.
  Addresses: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-12/msg00151.html

- Fix file pointer computation after short writes on block devices.
  Addresses: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-12/msg00151.html

=======================================================================


Have fun,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Houder]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 2.10.0-0.1

.. did you really upload it? As the mirror tells me it is not there ...

Henri


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

On Jan 17 11:42, Houder wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > 
> > I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 2.10.0-0.1
> 
> .. did you really upload it? As the mirror tells me it is not there ...

Thanks for the heads up.  I only uploaded the 32 bit version,
accidentally.  The 64 bit version will be up in a bit, sorry.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Houder]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:50:23, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> --+nBD6E3TurpgldQp
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> On Jan 17 11:42, Houder wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 2.10.0-0.1
> >=20
> > .. did you really upload it? As the mirror tells me it is not there ...
> 
> Thanks for the heads up.  I only uploaded the 32 bit version,
> accidentally.  The 64 bit version will be up in a bit, sorry.

You are right. It has arrived already! (Twente mirror, the Netherlands)

Thanks, Henri


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Houder]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:40:26, Houder wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:50:23, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > --+nBD6E3TurpgldQp
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > 
> > On Jan 17 11:42, Houder wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:51:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 2.10.0-0.1
> > >=20
> > > .. did you really upload it? As the mirror tells me it is not there ...
> > 
> > Thanks for the heads up.  I only uploaded the 32 bit version,
> > accidentally.  The 64 bit version will be up in a bit, sorry.
> 
> You are right. It has arrived already! (Twente mirror, the Netherlands)

... although setup.ini still? has to be updated ...

Henri


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Ken Brown]

On 1/16/2018 10:51 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 2.10.0-0.1
> 
> I'm planning for a release end of January.  Please test.

Do we need a new gcc release to go along with the recent ssp changes?

STC:

$ cat ssp_test.c
#define _FORTIFY_SOURCE 1
#include <unistd.h>

$ gcc -O1 -c ssp_test.c
In file included from /usr/include/sys/unistd.h:592:0,
                  from /usr/include/unistd.h:4,
                  from ssp_test.c:2:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-cygwin/6.4.0/include/ssp/unistd.h:38:17: fatal 
error: ssp.h: No such file or directory
  #include <ssp.h>
                  ^

Ken

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Ken Brown]

On 1/17/2018 5:29 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/16/2018 10:51 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>
>> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 2.10.0-0.1
>>
>> I'm planning for a release end of January.  Please test.
> 
> Do we need a new gcc release to go along with the recent ssp changes?

The following commit message seems to answer my question:

commit 3e8fc7d9f21329d5a98ec3cf6de138bce9bc2c05
Author: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Nov 27 23:07:10 2017 -0600

     ssp: add Object Size Checking common code

[...]

     Note that this does require building gcc with --disable-libssp and
     gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes.


Are there plans to coordinate the release of Cygwin 2.10.0 with a new 
gcc release?  In the meantime, I guess package maintainers have to build 
with -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE in order to test building with Cygwin 2.10.0.  Or 
am I missing something?

Ken

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 869 bytes --]

On 2018-01-18 08:35, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/17/2018 5:29 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> Do we need a new gcc release to go along with the recent ssp changes?
> 
> The following commit message seems to answer my question:
> 
>     Note that this does require building gcc with --disable-libssp and
>     gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes.

Correct.

> Are there plans to coordinate the release of Cygwin 2.10.0 with a new
> gcc release?  In the meantime, I guess package maintainers have to build
> with -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE in order to test building with Cygwin 2.10.0.  Or
> am I missing something?

-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE is not the default, so simply omitting it is
sufficient.  You could also just delete
/usr/lib/gcc/*-pc-cygwin/6.4.0/include/ssp, since we won't need it
anymore and it wasn't even being used properly in the first place.

-- 
Yaakov


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Ken Brown]

On 1/18/2018 4:30 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2018-01-18 08:35, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 1/17/2018 5:29 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> Do we need a new gcc release to go along with the recent ssp changes?
>>
>> The following commit message seems to answer my question:
>>
>>      Note that this does require building gcc with --disable-libssp and
>>      gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes.
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> Are there plans to coordinate the release of Cygwin 2.10.0 with a new
>> gcc release?  In the meantime, I guess package maintainers have to build
>> with -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE in order to test building with Cygwin 2.10.0.  Or
>> am I missing something?
> 
> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE is not the default, so simply omitting it is
> sufficient.

I was talking about building projects in which _FORTIFY_SOURCE is 
defined by default.  That happens, for instance, in the gnulib 
subdirectory of the emacs tree, so it may affect other projects that use 
gnulib also.

> You could also just delete
> /usr/lib/gcc/*-pc-cygwin/6.4.0/include/ssp, since we won't need it
> anymore and it wasn't even being used properly in the first place.

That's a simpler workaround than what I was doing.  Thanks.

Ken


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Ken Brown]

On 1/18/2018 6:28 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/18/2018 4:30 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>> On 2018-01-18 08:35, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2018 5:29 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> Do we need a new gcc release to go along with the recent ssp changes?
>>>
>>> The following commit message seems to answer my question:
>>>
>>>      Note that this does require building gcc with --disable-libssp and
>>>      gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> Are there plans to coordinate the release of Cygwin 2.10.0 with a new
>>> gcc release?  In the meantime, I guess package maintainers have to build
>>> with -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE in order to test building with Cygwin 2.10.0.  Or
>>> am I missing something?
>>
>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE is not the default, so simply omitting it is
>> sufficient.
> 
> I was talking about building projects in which _FORTIFY_SOURCE is 
> defined by default.  That happens, for instance, in the gnulib 
> subdirectory of the emacs tree, so it may affect other projects that use 
> gnulib also.
> 
>> You could also just delete
>> /usr/lib/gcc/*-pc-cygwin/6.4.0/include/ssp, since we won't need it
>> anymore and it wasn't even being used properly in the first place.
> 
> That's a simpler workaround than what I was doing.  Thanks.

Here's another issue that's come up with _FORTIFY_SOURCE.  One of the 
emacs source files, fileio.c, makes use of a pointer to readlinkat. 
[More precisely, the file uses an external function foo() with a 
parameter 'bar' that's a pointer to a function; foo is called in 
fileio.c with bar = readlinkat.]

When _FORTIFY_SOURCE > 0, this leads to an "undefined reference to 
`__ssp_protected_readlinkat'" linking error.  Does this sound like 
something that will be fixed with the new gcc release?

I realize I haven't given you full details, but it might be a few days 
until I have a chance to extract an STC for this issue, so I thought I'd 
give it a shot.

If you can't answer the question based on the information above, I'll 
make an STC as soon as I can.

Ken

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Ken Brown]

On 1/19/2018 10:27 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/18/2018 6:28 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 1/18/2018 4:30 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>>> On 2018-01-18 08:35, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2018 5:29 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>> Do we need a new gcc release to go along with the recent ssp changes?
>>>>
>>>> The following commit message seems to answer my question:
>>>>
>>>>      Note that this does require building gcc with --disable-libssp and
>>>>      gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>> Are there plans to coordinate the release of Cygwin 2.10.0 with a new
>>>> gcc release?  In the meantime, I guess package maintainers have to 
>>>> build
>>>> with -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE in order to test building with Cygwin 
>>>> 2.10.0.  Or
>>>> am I missing something?
>>>
>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE is not the default, so simply omitting it is
>>> sufficient.
>>
>> I was talking about building projects in which _FORTIFY_SOURCE is 
>> defined by default.  That happens, for instance, in the gnulib 
>> subdirectory of the emacs tree, so it may affect other projects that 
>> use gnulib also.
>>
>>> You could also just delete
>>> /usr/lib/gcc/*-pc-cygwin/6.4.0/include/ssp, since we won't need it
>>> anymore and it wasn't even being used properly in the first place.
>>
>> That's a simpler workaround than what I was doing.  Thanks.
> 
> Here's another issue that's come up with _FORTIFY_SOURCE.  One of the 
> emacs source files, fileio.c, makes use of a pointer to readlinkat. 
> [More precisely, the file uses an external function foo() with a 
> parameter 'bar' that's a pointer to a function; foo is called in 
> fileio.c with bar = readlinkat.]
> 
> When _FORTIFY_SOURCE > 0, this leads to an "undefined reference to 
> `__ssp_protected_readlinkat'" linking error.  Does this sound like 
> something that will be fixed with the new gcc release?
> 
> I realize I haven't given you full details, but it might be a few days 
> until I have a chance to extract an STC for this issue, so I thought I'd 
> give it a shot.
> 
> If you can't answer the question based on the information above, I'll 
> make an STC as soon as I can.

I got to this sooner than expected:

$ cat ssp_test.c
#define  _FORTIFY_SOURCE 1
#include <unistd.h>
void foo (ssize_t (*preadlinkat) (int, char const *, char *, size_t));

void baz ()
{
   foo (readlinkat);
}

$ gcc -c -O1 ssp_test.c

$ objdump -x ssp_test.o | grep readlinkat
   6 .rdata$.refptr.__ssp_protected_readlinkat 00000010 
0000000000000000  0000000000000000  00000180  2**4
[...]

Ken

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Ken Brown]

On 1/20/2018 7:23 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/19/2018 10:27 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 1/18/2018 6:28 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2018 4:30 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>>>> On 2018-01-18 08:35, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/2018 5:29 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>>> Do we need a new gcc release to go along with the recent ssp changes?
>>>>>
>>>>> The following commit message seems to answer my question:
>>>>>
>>>>>      Note that this does require building gcc with --disable-libssp 
>>>>> and
>>>>>      gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>>> Are there plans to coordinate the release of Cygwin 2.10.0 with a new
>>>>> gcc release?  In the meantime, I guess package maintainers have to 
>>>>> build
>>>>> with -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE in order to test building with Cygwin 
>>>>> 2.10.0.  Or
>>>>> am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE is not the default, so simply omitting it is
>>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> I was talking about building projects in which _FORTIFY_SOURCE is 
>>> defined by default.  That happens, for instance, in the gnulib 
>>> subdirectory of the emacs tree, so it may affect other projects that 
>>> use gnulib also.
>>>
>>>> You could also just delete
>>>> /usr/lib/gcc/*-pc-cygwin/6.4.0/include/ssp, since we won't need it
>>>> anymore and it wasn't even being used properly in the first place.
>>>
>>> That's a simpler workaround than what I was doing.  Thanks.
>>
>> Here's another issue that's come up with _FORTIFY_SOURCE.  One of the 
>> emacs source files, fileio.c, makes use of a pointer to readlinkat. 
>> [More precisely, the file uses an external function foo() with a 
>> parameter 'bar' that's a pointer to a function; foo is called in 
>> fileio.c with bar = readlinkat.]
>>
>> When _FORTIFY_SOURCE > 0, this leads to an "undefined reference to 
>> `__ssp_protected_readlinkat'" linking error.  Does this sound like 
>> something that will be fixed with the new gcc release?
>>
>> I realize I haven't given you full details, but it might be a few days 
>> until I have a chance to extract an STC for this issue, so I thought 
>> I'd give it a shot.
>>
>> If you can't answer the question based on the information above, I'll 
>> make an STC as soon as I can.
> 
> I got to this sooner than expected:
> 
> $ cat ssp_test.c
> #define  _FORTIFY_SOURCE 1
> #include <unistd.h>
> void foo (ssize_t (*preadlinkat) (int, char const *, char *, size_t));
> 
> void baz ()
> {
>    foo (readlinkat);
> }
> 
> $ gcc -c -O1 ssp_test.c
> 
> $ objdump -x ssp_test.o | grep readlinkat
>    6 .rdata$.refptr.__ssp_protected_readlinkat 00000010 
> 0000000000000000  0000000000000000  00000180  2**4
> [...]

And the problem is still there with the new GCC that was just released.

Ken


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Ken Brown]

On 1/20/2018 6:49 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/20/2018 7:23 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 1/19/2018 10:27 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2018 6:28 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2018 4:30 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-01-18 08:35, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2018 5:29 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> Do we need a new gcc release to go along with the recent ssp 
>>>>>>> changes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following commit message seems to answer my question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Note that this does require building gcc with 
>>>>>> --disable-libssp and
>>>>>>      gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp=yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there plans to coordinate the release of Cygwin 2.10.0 with a new
>>>>>> gcc release?  In the meantime, I guess package maintainers have to 
>>>>>> build
>>>>>> with -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE in order to test building with Cygwin 
>>>>>> 2.10.0.  Or
>>>>>> am I missing something?
>>>>>
>>>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE is not the default, so simply omitting it is
>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> I was talking about building projects in which _FORTIFY_SOURCE is 
>>>> defined by default.  That happens, for instance, in the gnulib 
>>>> subdirectory of the emacs tree, so it may affect other projects that 
>>>> use gnulib also.
>>>>
>>>>> You could also just delete
>>>>> /usr/lib/gcc/*-pc-cygwin/6.4.0/include/ssp, since we won't need it
>>>>> anymore and it wasn't even being used properly in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> That's a simpler workaround than what I was doing.  Thanks.
>>>
>>> Here's another issue that's come up with _FORTIFY_SOURCE.  One of the 
>>> emacs source files, fileio.c, makes use of a pointer to readlinkat. 
>>> [More precisely, the file uses an external function foo() with a 
>>> parameter 'bar' that's a pointer to a function; foo is called in 
>>> fileio.c with bar = readlinkat.]
>>>
>>> When _FORTIFY_SOURCE > 0, this leads to an "undefined reference to 
>>> `__ssp_protected_readlinkat'" linking error.  Does this sound like 
>>> something that will be fixed with the new gcc release?
>>>
>>> I realize I haven't given you full details, but it might be a few 
>>> days until I have a chance to extract an STC for this issue, so I 
>>> thought I'd give it a shot.
>>>
>>> If you can't answer the question based on the information above, I'll 
>>> make an STC as soon as I can.
>>
>> I got to this sooner than expected:
>>
>> $ cat ssp_test.c
>> #define  _FORTIFY_SOURCE 1
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> void foo (ssize_t (*preadlinkat) (int, char const *, char *, size_t));
>>
>> void baz ()
>> {
>>    foo (readlinkat);
>> }
>>
>> $ gcc -c -O1 ssp_test.c
>>
>> $ objdump -x ssp_test.o | grep readlinkat
>>    6 .rdata$.refptr.__ssp_protected_readlinkat 00000010 
>> 0000000000000000  0000000000000000  00000180  2**4
>> [...]

The following patch seems to fix the problem:

--- ssp.h~      2018-01-22 09:18:18.000000000 -0500
+++ ssp.h       2018-01-24 13:44:55.856635800 -0500
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
 #endif
 #define __ssp_real(fun)                __ssp_real_(fun)

-#define __ssp_inline extern __inline__ __attribute__((__always_inline__, __gnu_inline__))
+#define __ssp_inline extern __inline__ __attribute__((__always_inline__))

 #define __ssp_bos(ptr) __builtin_object_size(ptr, __SSP_FORTIFY_LEVEL > 1)
 #define __ssp_bos0(ptr) __builtin_object_size(ptr, 0)

I arrived at this by comparing Cygwin's ssp.h with NetBSD's, on which
Cygwin's was based, and I noticed that NetBSD didn't use __gnu_inline__.
Yaakov, is there a reason that Cygwin needs __gnu_inline__?  It apparently
prevents fortified functions from being used as function pointers.

Using my test case again, here's what happens with and without __gnu_inline__:

With:
$ gcc -O1 -c ssp_test.c && objdump -x ssp_test.o | grep readlinkat
  6 .rdata$.refptr.__ssp_protected_readlinkat 00000010  0000000000000000  0000000000000000  00000180  2**4
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, DATA, LINK_ONCE_DISCARD (COMDAT .refptr.__ssp_protected_readlinkat 18)
[  4](sec  7)(fl 0x00)(ty   0)(scl   3) (nx 1) 0x0000000000000000 .rdata$.refptr.__ssp_protected_readlinkat
[ 18](sec  7)(fl 0x00)(ty   0)(scl   2) (nx 0) 0x0000000000000000 .refptr.__ssp_protected_readlinkat
[ 19](sec  0)(fl 0x00)(ty   0)(scl   2) (nx 0) 0x0000000000000000 __ssp_protected_readlinkat
0000000000000007 R_X86_64_PC32     __ssp_protected_readlinkat
RELOCATION RECORDS FOR [.rdata$.refptr.__ssp_protected_readlinkat]:
0000000000000000 R_X86_64_64       __ssp_protected_readlinkat

Without:
$ gcc -O1 -c ssp_test.c && objdump -x ssp_test.o | grep readlinkat
[  2](sec  1)(fl 0x00)(ty  20)(scl   2) (nx 1) 0x0000000000000000 __ssp_protected_readlinkat
[ 27](sec  0)(fl 0x00)(ty   0)(scl   2) (nx 0) 0x0000000000000000 readlinkat
0000000000000005 R_X86_64_PC32     readlinkat

Ken

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2106 bytes --]

On 2018-01-24 13:25, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/20/2018 6:49 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 1/20/2018 7:23 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2018 10:27 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> Here's another issue that's come up with _FORTIFY_SOURCE.  One of the 
>>>> emacs source files, fileio.c, makes use of a pointer to readlinkat. 
>>>> When _FORTIFY_SOURCE > 0, this leads to an "undefined reference to 
>>>> `__ssp_protected_readlinkat'" linking error.  Does this sound like 
>>>> something that will be fixed with the new gcc release?
>>>
>>> I got to this sooner than expected:
>>>
>>> $ cat ssp_test.c
>>> #define  _FORTIFY_SOURCE 1
>>> #include <unistd.h>
>>> void foo (ssize_t (*preadlinkat) (int, char const *, char *, size_t));
>>>
>>> void baz ()
>>> {
>>>    foo (readlinkat);
>>> }
> 
> The following patch seems to fix the problem:
> 
> -#define __ssp_inline extern __inline__ __attribute__((__always_inline__, __gnu_inline__))
> +#define __ssp_inline extern __inline__ __attribute__((__always_inline__))

No, that would have other consequences:

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Inline.html

> I arrived at this by comparing Cygwin's ssp.h with NetBSD's, on which
> Cygwin's was based, and I noticed that NetBSD didn't use __gnu_inline__.

The BSDs also stuck with GCC 4.2 due to licensing reasons, so you can't
always compare.

> Yaakov, is there a reason that Cygwin needs __gnu_inline__?

Because the semantics of inline changed in GCC 4.3.

> It apparently prevents fortified functions from being used as function pointers.

I am currently testing the following, which seems to match glibc in this
detail:

--- a/newlib/libc/include/ssp/ssp.h
+++ b/newlib/libc/include/ssp/ssp.h
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
                __chk_fail()
 #define __ssp_decl(rtype, fun, args) \
 rtype __ssp_real_(fun) args __asm__(__ASMNAME(#fun)); \
-__ssp_inline rtype fun args __asm__(__ASMNAME("__ssp_protected_" #fun)); \
 __ssp_inline rtype fun args
 #define __ssp_redirect_raw(rtype, fun, args, call, cond, bos) \
 __ssp_decl(rtype, fun, args) \

-- 
Yaakov


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.10.0-0.1

[Ken Brown]

On 1/24/2018 7:16 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2018-01-24 13:25, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 1/20/2018 6:49 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2018 7:23 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2018 10:27 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>> Here's another issue that's come up with _FORTIFY_SOURCE.  One of the
>>>>> emacs source files, fileio.c, makes use of a pointer to readlinkat.
>>>>> When _FORTIFY_SOURCE > 0, this leads to an "undefined reference to
>>>>> `__ssp_protected_readlinkat'" linking error.  Does this sound like
>>>>> something that will be fixed with the new gcc release?
>>>>
>>>> I got to this sooner than expected:
>>>>
>>>> $ cat ssp_test.c
>>>> #define  _FORTIFY_SOURCE 1
>>>> #include <unistd.h>
>>>> void foo (ssize_t (*preadlinkat) (int, char const *, char *, size_t));
>>>>
>>>> void baz ()
>>>> {
>>>>     foo (readlinkat);
>>>> }
>>
>> The following patch seems to fix the problem:
>>
>> -#define __ssp_inline extern __inline__ __attribute__((__always_inline__, __gnu_inline__))
>> +#define __ssp_inline extern __inline__ __attribute__((__always_inline__))
> 
> No, that would have other consequences:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Inline.html
> 
>> I arrived at this by comparing Cygwin's ssp.h with NetBSD's, on which
>> Cygwin's was based, and I noticed that NetBSD didn't use __gnu_inline__.
> 
> The BSDs also stuck with GCC 4.2 due to licensing reasons, so you can't
> always compare.
> 
>> Yaakov, is there a reason that Cygwin needs __gnu_inline__?
> 
> Because the semantics of inline changed in GCC 4.3.
> 
>> It apparently prevents fortified functions from being used as function pointers.
> 
> I am currently testing the following, which seems to match glibc in this
> detail:
> 
> --- a/newlib/libc/include/ssp/ssp.h
> +++ b/newlib/libc/include/ssp/ssp.h
> @@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
>                  __chk_fail()
>   #define __ssp_decl(rtype, fun, args) \
>   rtype __ssp_real_(fun) args __asm__(__ASMNAME(#fun)); \
> -__ssp_inline rtype fun args __asm__(__ASMNAME("__ssp_protected_" #fun)); \
>   __ssp_inline rtype fun args
>   #define __ssp_redirect_raw(rtype, fun, args, call, cond, bos) \
>   __ssp_decl(rtype, fun, args) \

Works for me.

Ken


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple