Re: TLS-version of libc6/{testing,unstable} breaks libunwind
At Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:27:37 -0700,
David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:02:22 +0900, GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp> said:
>
> Goto> But I try to build with -fomit-frame-pointer.
>
> You mean _without_ -fomit-frame-pointer, right?
Yes, right. Sorry my mistake.
> Goto> If it's serious for some usages, please let me know.
>
> It's definitely serious. Any application that tries to create a
> backtrace may crash with this libc. It's _impossible_ to get a proper
> backtrace if you compile with -fomit-frame-pointer without using
> -fexceptions (or at least -funwind-tables).
We got security bug report; it may be chance to switch -19. I put no
-fomit-frame-pointer .deb based on -18 at:
http://www.gotom.jp/~gotom/debian/glibc/2.3.2.ds1-18_i386.fofp/
I eliminate -fomit-frame-pointer from all architectures:
amd64.mk (nptl), i386.mk (nptl, i686), linux.mk (nptl-default),
s390.mk (s390x), sparc (sparc64, sparcv9, sparcv9b)
Also I remove -D__USE_STRING_INLINES from all architectures because I
suspect it has positive result for most people. The size difference
from the previous -18 is very small because it's affected only for
nptl and i686:
.deb .debsize(18) .debsize(ofp) e-size(18) e-size(ofp)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
glibc-doc 3164952 3165002 7763118 7762944
libc6-dbg 10241126 10229522 36509949 36544485
libc6-dev 2530530 2530606 7815131 7815635
libc6-i686 973254 956530 2099577 2060963
libc6-pic 1034360 1034392 3778432 3778252
libc6-prof 2011944 2012024 5797591 5797923
libc6-udeb 718786 718900 1628260 1628260
libc6 4920920 4899874 10315705 10259933
libnss-dns-udeb 7726 7728 13896 13896
libnss-files-udeb 13746 13746 34436 34436
locales 3981002 3981024 9040454 9040638
nscd 90750 90746 118998 119182
.debsize: .deb file size, e-size: extracted total size,
(18): 2.3.2.ds1-18, (ofp): without -fomit-frame-pointer
I think it does not break d-i size limitation. If you have no
David, Daniel, if you have no objection, I'll put it in -19.
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: