linking statically against dietlibc: a blocker?

[Warren Togami]

Enrico Scholz wrote:
> paul at xelerance.com (Paul Wouters) writes:
> 
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176579
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176581
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176582
>> ...
>> But I don't think we should start using different c libraries for
>> random binaries.
> 
> 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.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com