Hello, here is a webrev, I used the existing bug "JDK-8130017 : use _FORTIFY_SOURCE in gcc fastdebug builds"
Hope that’s fine . https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130017 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8130017.0/ Our internal OpenJDK Linux (x86_64, ppc64, ppc64le , s390x) fastdebug builds are fine with the added flag . Best Regards, Matthias > -----Original Message----- > From: Baesken, Matthias > Sent: Dienstag, 7. Mai 2019 16:55 > To: 'Erik Joelsson' <erik.joels...@oracle.com>; 'build- > d...@openjdk.java.net' <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Cc: 'Kim Barrett' <kim.barr...@oracle.com>; Zeller, Arno > <arno.zel...@sap.com> > Subject: RE: gcc FORTIFY_SOURCE application security flags > > Hello, I looked at JDK-8050803 . > There are build issues reported when using the _FORTIFY_SOURCE flag . > However I only noticed one build issue, this is related to an additional > warning ("no result checking of fwrite call") , most likely generated by > the > added compile time checks of -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 . > Obviously , the _FORTIFY_SOURCE flag must be used together with > optimization flags , otherwise the feature does not work . > So I propose to add it to the optimization flags, but only in case we have a > fastdebug build. See the patch below . > > Best regards, Matthias > > > Patch : > ----------- > > diff -r 26748009f2e5 make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 > --- a/make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 Thu May 02 20:47:23 2019 +0200 > +++ b/make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 Tue May 07 16:07:32 2019 +0200 > @@ -300,6 +300,13 @@ > C_O_FLAG_DEBUG="-O0" > C_O_FLAG_DEBUG_JVM="-O0" > C_O_FLAG_NONE="-O0" > + # -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 hardening option needs optimization enabled > + if test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_OS" = xlinux -a "x$DEBUG_LEVEL" = > "xfastdebug"; then > + C_O_FLAG_HIGHEST_JVM="${C_O_FLAG_HIGHEST_JVM} - > D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" > + C_O_FLAG_HIGHEST="${C_O_FLAG_HIGHEST} -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" > + C_O_FLAG_HI="${C_O_FLAG_HI} -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" > + C_O_FLAG_NORM="${C_O_FLAG_NORM} -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" > + fi > elif test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xclang; then > if test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_OS" = xmacosx; then > # On MacOSX we optimize for size, something > diff -r 26748009f2e5 test/fmw/gtest/src/gtest.cc > --- a/test/fmw/gtest/src/gtest.cc Thu May 02 20:47:23 2019 +0200 > +++ b/test/fmw/gtest/src/gtest.cc Tue May 07 16:07:32 2019 +0200 > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ > #include "gtest/gtest.h" > #include "gtest/gtest-spi.h" > > +#include <assert.h> > #include <ctype.h> > #include <math.h> > #include <stdarg.h> > @@ -3538,7 +3539,8 @@ > // errors are ignored as there's nothing better we can do and we > // don't want to fail the test because of this. > FILE* pfile = posix::FOpen(premature_exit_filepath, "w"); > - fwrite("0", 1, 1, pfile); > + size_t cnt= fwrite("0", 1, 1, pfile); > + assert(cnt == (size_t)1); > fclose(pfile); > } > } > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com> > > Sent: Freitag, 3. Mai 2019 17:40 > > To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; 'build- > > d...@openjdk.java.net' <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> > > Subject: Re: gcc FORTIFY_SOURCE application security flags > > > > Hello Matthias, > > > > We have tried to use it before but later removed it. See > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8050803 > > > > /Erik > > > > On 2019-05-03 08:12, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello. > > > maybe some of you are aware of the gcc FORTIFY_SOURCE application > > security flags. > > > Developers can enable compile and also runtime checks for some string / > > memory related operations with the flag. > > > > > > See details : > > > https://access.redhat.com/blogs/766093/posts/1976213 > > > > > > Have you tried already those flags in the OpenJDK ? > > > > > > One issue I experienced when using the flag (-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2) is > > that in case that a runtime issue is detected, > > > no hs_err file is written , only a "*** buffer overflow detected ***" + > > backtrace + Memory map output is written, looks like this : > > > > > > > > > *** buffer overflow detected ***: <my-path>/bin/java terminated > > > ======= Backtrace: ========= > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x37)[0x7f5b500b7177] > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(+0xe8e10)[0x7f5b500b4e10] > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(+0xe8109)[0x7f5b500b4109] > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(_IO_default_xsputn+0x85)[0x7f5b5003f705] > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(_IO_vfprintf+0x18e)[0x7f5b5000f0ce] > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(__vsprintf_chk+0x9d)[0x7f5b500b41ad] > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(__sprintf_chk+0x80)[0x7f5b500b40f0] > > > > > > ........ > > > ======= Memory map: ======== > > > c0000000-c0700000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to get a hs_err file, do you know a way to get this in > context > > of the gcc flag _FORTIFY_SOURCE ? > > > > > > In case this is not possible, the flag might not be useful any more for > > OpenJDK . > > > Maybe the gcc7 flags for memory error detection > > > > > > https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/02/22/memory-error- > > detection-using-gcc/ > > > > > > might provide an alternative solution - are they already enabled by > default > > ? > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Matthias
