Fwd: LLVM collaboration?

Jan Hubicka hubicka@ucw.cz
Wed Feb 12 16:23:00 GMT 2014

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> > What about instead of our current odd way of identifying LTO objects
> > simply add a special ELF note telling the linker the plugin to use?
> > 
> > .note._linker_plugin '/...../libltoplugin.so'
> > 
> > that way the linker should try 1) loading that plugin, 2) register the
> > specific object with that plugin.
> Unless this is only allowed for a whitelist of known-good plugins in 
> known-good directories, it's a clear security hole for the linker to 
> execute code in arbitrary files named by linker input.  The linker should 
> be safe to run on untrusted input files.

Also I believe the flies should be independent of particular setup (that is not
contain a path) and probably host OS (that is not having .so extension) at least.
We need some versioning scheme for different versions of compilers.
Finally we need a solution for non-ELF LTO objects (like LLVM)

But yes, having an compiler independent way of declaring that plugin is needed
and what plugin should be uses seems possible.

> -- 
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com

More information about the Gcc mailing list