Bug#1022787: libc6-dev: Lintian warns that all mips*el executables have executable stack
Hi,
writing this with my Lintian maintainer hat on. Nearly full quote due
to Cc'ing another bug report and bug reporter:
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2022-10-26 22:09, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > control: tag -1 + moreinfo
> >
> > On 2022-10-25 21:07, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > Package: libc6-dev
> > > Version: 2.35-4
> > > Severity: normal
> > > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-mips@lists.debian.org, lintian@packages.debian.org, jrtc27@debian.org
> > > User: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
> > > Usertags: mips mipsel
> > >
> > > All mips*el executables and libraries appear to have an executable stack,
> > > resulting in very large numbers of Lintian warnings, particularly for
> > > packages with many small ELF objects like
> > > <https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?packages=samba>.
> > >
> > > Jessica Clarke looked into this and found that this is intentionally done
> > > by glibc when targeting minimum kernel 4.8.0 or older with mips hardfloat:
> > > https://github.com/bminor/glibc/blob/595c22ecd8e87a27fd19270ed30fdbae9ad25426/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/mips/configure.ac#L138-L143
> > >
> > > Debian 9 had a kernel newer than 4.8.0, so I think Debian 12 probably
> > > doesn't need to go that far into backwards compatibility? If the mips
> > > porters agree, then glibc on mips*el should stop forcing an executable
> > > stack, either by increasing the minimal kernel version or by patching
> > > this out. That will provide some security hardening on mips*el.
> >
> > Note that the other official architecture still have a kernel
> > compatibility set to 3.2, so that will make a difference between
> > architectures. There are discussions to increase it upstream, but this
> > won't happened for bookworm.
> >
> > > Or, if the mips porters consider this backwards compatibility to be
> > > more important than the security hardening of a non-executable stack,
> > > then Lintian should stop issuing warnings about the executable stack on
> > > mips*el to improve its signal/noise ratio.
> >
> > At this stage there is nothing that can be done on the glibc side, the
> > decision has to be taken by the mips porters.
>
> We are getting very close to the toolchain freeze. Any decision about
> that?
JFYI: There is the request to disable this tag completely on MIPS
architectures in https://bugs.debian.org/1025436
Now I wonder if this would actually help or worsen the situation for
the glibc maintainers.
Guillem: You wrote something about "bullseye" in #1025436. I think you
meant "bookworm" instead. Am I right?
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Reply to: