> 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. Honza > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > jos...@codesourcery.com
