From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22FA2385840C for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:23:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 22FA2385840C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 22FA2385840C Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1707816208; cv=none; b=qA09Q4y/l3CICQyizmjG0Es03wCyb5Z9POLtOpsTsJXq1SAEHsAJaYh42PP/DirCtROvY+EFoGPNxZN0uJhNo2E5qIAlsTDW800zxqJXALRLDqQ98pWzaAh2KrAxbgR2/JLquBf3/4Tqk8WTFlqzpa5yfO1+JDWK4lLjKH2SPL4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1707816208; c=relaxed/simple; bh=U/lc7yQl5+OjzFYLYmurbeqE6M3Ye+wGelvONegjWMY=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=w5wccgm0Ce2dKeMV/2GWotFJfdQGu88CTOc1Dzvd4l4vfZ2SeRgIe4BU/VqUKrepsO6Mv+pU4C+4iqvNgrIlgavSJZQdL90uO+IJLL+ainwPFfHNaBwZ8UgxvsBBD5AIWn1J5+X7zT8YyFc2Ni8RTbaTZsJ57y6CFqFPCJauThg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1707816206; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lvC2Lptp1FW5ISHrGEADY2h90dPedtS0nEKpYKZnWxo=; b=NG0qKkrWlaJKhz4OmgUbiO1K3FDgMopkIJ0dTzDnqoH7qAXCjPFZ519yq2RLxKvNo974KS FMiydk7b/yaYjhD+zQLb2gx6K9hBaA5Ze9yAFhNAWTgUcnB31GsgXNpcmCK7m8WjQa3QW6 lA9OIwg1Wx/go1Rja/PKc1hZGn2VXsg= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-531-PoLiTfCAMeazWtaERtgx0g-1; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 04:23:22 -0500 X-MC-Unique: PoLiTfCAMeazWtaERtgx0g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 905F32806402; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:23:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.193]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4EFC14F0; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:23:21 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Adhemerval Zanella Netto , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] misc: Build getdomainname with fortification References: <7710004342d09a8e62868a0bc659b5dca5b67324.1707491940.git.fweimer@redhat.com> <8623972a-5966-4953-b537-72bcde371a68@linaro.org> <87a5o58osg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:23:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:12:03 +0100") Message-ID: <87y1bok9a0.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Andreas Schwab: > On Feb 12 2024, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Andreas Schwab: >> >>> On Feb 12 2024, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/02/24 12:24, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>>> Introduce __glibc_nofortify_getdomainname to request disabling >>>>> the fortification wrapper. >>>> >>>> I am not very found of __glibc_nofortify_getdomainname escaping to an >>>> installed header, but I don't have a better solution. >>> >>> Can't this be fixed with an alias? >> >> It would have to be an assembler-level alias that GCC doesn't know >> about. Would you prefer that? It results in worse debugging >> information, I think. > > I didn't realize that all the fortified functions are compiled with > disabled fortification for that reason. Does this mean you are okay with the patch as posted? Thanks, Florian