|
|
|
|
@ -126,4 +126,35 @@ another commandline option for the new (deflate?) technique, but I think
|
|
|
|
|
the normal -z ought to work too. But that is literally the last feature!
|
|
|
|
|
Then just release details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 29, 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First problem report from a user. Lollipop (Android 5.0) requires "PIE"
|
|
|
|
|
executables -- position independent code. I think that is a modern
|
|
|
|
|
equivalent to -fpic that Android is now requiring so that it can
|
|
|
|
|
randomize addresses to try to obscure stack smashing attacks that rely on
|
|
|
|
|
fixed addresses. It is epicly lame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyways, the big fuck-you from Google is that Ice Cream Sandwich (Android
|
|
|
|
|
4.1) and earlier require fixed-position code. So one binary will not
|
|
|
|
|
generally work on both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a good summary:
|
|
|
|
|
https://code.google.com/p/android-developer-preview/issues/detail?id=888
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is something called "run_pie" which you can wrap your executables
|
|
|
|
|
in that lets older Android run PIE executables. It would require a
|
|
|
|
|
relatively small change to the exec() call to prepend it with "run_pie".
|
|
|
|
|
That seems like a hack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The suggested remedy is to build two different apks! Yuck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyways, it is only executables (not libraries -- they are position
|
|
|
|
|
independent already) that are affected. And apparently static
|
|
|
|
|
executables don't care one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So that is my remedy -- static executables for the moment. I tested them
|
|
|
|
|
and it is only a little bit bigger -- 904kB of binaries instead of 668kB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XXX - support password-based logins?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Alexander
9 years ago