linking statically against dietlibc: a blocker?

[Enrico Scholz]

wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) writes:

>> Tickets above are not for "random binaries" but for projects which
>> are designed for dietlibc. Using glibc for them would make binaries
>> larger, slower and increases memory usage without providing a single
>> gain.
>
> You lose the benefit of FORTIFY_SOURCE and address randomization of
> entry points of libc functions, both of which are detriments to
> security.

Please show me, where an argv0 implementation like

----
#include <unistd.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
	if (argc<2)
		return 1;
	execvp(argv[1], argv+2);
	return 2;
}
----

can benefit from FORTIFY_SOURCE or address randomization.



Enrico